Podcasts about Senior counsel

Today on our podcast, we're releasing a repurposed recording of our July 23, 2025 webinar titled “Student Lending Legislation and Litigation: 2025 Mid-Year Review.” The webinar features esteemed partners John Culhane and Tom Burke, who dive into the intricacies of student lending litigation and regulatory developments. As a senior partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, John Culhane shares his extensive knowledge on higher education finance, focusing on state legislation and private student loan litigation. Tom Burke, also a partner in the same group, brings his expertise in private class actions and state enforcement actions, providing insights into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its significant impact on federal loan servicers and discussing federal student loan litigation. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In 2025, antitrust and consumer protection remain hot topics in the legal world as a new Congress and Administration begin. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss possible antitrust and Federal Trade Commission reforms in the 119th Congress.Featuring:Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the JudiciaryThomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary CommitteeDaniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of RepresentativesLynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States SenateModerator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

Since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump has emphasized deregulation. Deregulatory efforts have focused both on undoing Biden-era policies in areas of interest (environmental regulation, SOGI issues, immigration, etc.) and on a broader effort to limit the scope of administrative power more broadly. In light of these strong changes, this panel will discuss the history of deregulation efforts in the Executive Branch, how those compare to the deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration, and what these changes may mean both practically and more institutionally for the future of the Administrative State.Featuring:Prof. Bridget C.E. Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State UniversityProf. Susan E. Dudley, Distinguished Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington UniversityMr. William C. Hughes, Senior Counsel, Consensys SoftwareProf. Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School(Moderator) Mr. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School

Today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast offers an in-depth analysis of the unitary executive theory and its implications for terminations by President Trump of the Democratic members/commissioners of several so-called independent Federal agencies.  The episode features Lev Menand, an associate professor of law at Columbia Law School, who provides expert insights into financial institutions and administrative law and the validity of the Trump terminations. Professor Menand discusses the theory that President Trump may exercise complete control over independent federal agencies (which includes such terminations), despite statutes which permit terminations only for cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphries Executor which upheld the constitutionality of the “for cause” limitation on such terminations.  Professor Menand also discusses (i) the stay orders issued by the Supreme Court which have frozen preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts in litigation initiated by the terminated individuals which required the reinstatement of Democratic members of two agencies who had been fired by Trump and (ii) the dictum in such stay orders saying that the reasoning behind the stay orders  does not apply to the members of the Federal Reserve Board. This episode builds on another podcast released by Consumer Finance Monitor on July 10 featuring Patrick Sobkowski of Marquette University. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In this episode, Stephen and Felicity are joined by the Hon. Steven Warmsley, former District Court judge, Senior Counsel, and author. The trio explores the arc of Warmsley's legal career, from solicitor to silk to judge, and unpacks the practicalities and philosophies of fearless advocacy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sixty years ago, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law one of the most transformative bills in United States history - the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Michael Li joins Lindsay Langholz to take stock of the VRA's impact on American democracy, the real wins pro-democracy advocates are still able to achieve in spite of an increasingly hostile Supreme Court, and what the future holds for this critical law.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSGuest: Michael Li, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for JusticeLink: Growing Racial Disparities in Voter Turnout, 2008–2022, Brennan Center for JusticeGuest: A New Cycle of Texas Gerrymandering: Your Questions Answered, Bolts MagazineGuest: The Supreme Court Just Signaled Something Deeply Disturbing About the Next Term, by Rick HasenGuest: The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Fact Sheet, The Brennan Center for JusticeVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Joe Piscopo's guest host this morning is Col. Kurt Schlichter, Attorney, Retired Army Infantry Colonel with a Master's in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, Senior Columnist at Town Hall, and the author of the new book "American Apocalypse: The Second Civil War." 15:01- Col. Patrick Callahan, New Jersey State Police Superintendent and State Director of Emergency Management Topic: Conditions in New Jersey after yesterday's storm 26:22- Joseph Giacalone, retired NYPD Detective Sergeant and an adjunct professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Topic: Funeral for Officer Didarul Islam 51:09- Josh Hammer, syndicated columnist, senior editor-at-large at Newsweek, author of "Israel and Civilization" and the host of "The Josh Hammer Show" Topic: Latest in Israel, Trump's fight against federal judges 1:25:32- Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at Article III Project Topic: Trump's fight against Judges, NatCon 1:37:16- Sen. Mike Lee, Republican representing Utah Topic: Latest in the U.S. Senate, working across the aisle 1:50:20- Christina Farrell, NYC Office of Emergency Management, First Deputy Commissioner Topic: State of Emergency in New York 2:03:00- Nate Morris, Senate candidate running to replace Mitch McConnell Topic: Why he wants to replace Mitch McConnellSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our podcast show being released today commemorates the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises - the opinion in which the Court overturned the Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevron Deference Doctrine stems from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision basically held that if federal legislation is ambiguous the courts must defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation if the regulation is reasonable. My primary goal was to identify a person who would be universally considered one of the country's leading experts on administrative law and, specifically the Chevron Deference Doctrine and how the courts have applied the Roper opinion. I was very fortunate to recruit Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law at Penn Law School and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. In this episode we explore two of his recent and widely discussed papers, titled “Loper Bright's Disingenuity” and “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright” Here are the questions that we discussed with Professor Coglianese: Let's start at the beginning. What is the Chevron case all about? How did the Court in Loper Bright explain why it was overruling Chevron? You have a new article coming out later this year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review called “Loper Bright's Disingenuity,” co-authored with David Froomkin of the University of Houston. What do you and Professor Froomkin mean by the title of your article?  In your article, you critique what you call the Court's “facile formalism.” What do you mean by that? You also criticize the way the Court based its decision in Loper Bright on the Administrative Procedure Act or APA. What exactly was problematic about the Court's APA analysis?  Let's shift gears from your analysis of the logic of the Loper Bright opinion to talk about what the decision's effects have been so far and what its effects ultimately might be on the future of administrative government in the United States. You have another article on Loper Bright that was recently published in the Administrative Law Review and coauthored with Dan Walters of Texas A&M Law School. It has another provocative title: “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright.”  What do you mean by the “Great Unsettling”?  Although you say that it is hard to predict exactly what impact Loper Bright will have on the future of administrative government, you also acknowledge that the decision has created a “symbolic shock” and is likely to “punctuate the equilibrium of the administrative governance game as we have come to know it.”  Can we see any effects so far in terms of how Loper Bright is affecting court decisions?  For example, let's start with the Supreme Court itself. Has it had anything more to say about Loper Bright in decisions it's handed down this past year? If we look at the lower courts, what can we discern about how Loper Bright has been received in federal district courts or courts of appeals?  Are there any trends that can be observed? I'd like to bring things full circle by raising a metaphor you and Professor Walters use in your article, “The Great Unsettling.” You say there that the Loper Bright “decision might best be thought of as something of a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball.” What do you mean? Can you tell us what you see inside your crystal ball? Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast show.  

Today's show is brought to you by these great sponsors: Delta Rescue Delta Rescue is one the largest no-kill animal sanctuaries. Leo Grillo is on a mission to help all abandoned, malnourished, hurt or suffering animals. He relies solely on contributions from people like you and me. If you want to help Leo to continue his mission of running one of the best care-for-life animal sanctuaries in the country please visit Delta Rescue at: https://deltarescue.org/ Concerned Women For America Concerned Women For America focuses on seven core issues: family, sanctity of life, religious liberty, parental choice in education, fighting sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel. CWA knows what a woman is. CWA trains women to become grassroots leaders, speak into the culture, pray, testify, and lobby. If you donate $20 you will get CEO & President Penny Nance's new book  A Woman's Guide, Seven Rules for Success in Business and Life. Head to ⁠https://concernedwomen.org/spicer/⁠to donate today! Firecracker Farms Everything's better with HOT SALT. Firecracker Farms hot salt is hand crafted on their family farm with Carolina Reaper, Ghost and Trinidad Scorpion peppers. This is a balanced, deep flavor pairs perfect with your favorite foods. Whether it's eggs, steaks veggies or even your favorite beverage, Firecracker Farms hot salt is what you've been missing. Just head to https://firecracker.farm/ use code word: SEAN for a discount. Unlock the flavor in your food now! President Trump secures another massive trade deal with the European Union. The biggest deal yet is poised for the United States and the 27 nation bloc to trade $2 trillion in goods and services per year. President Trump is the first president to not be beholden to special interest but the interest of the American people. Josh Hammer is here to break down everything on the legal front with Epstein and Russiagate. The Epstein case continues to be a bit of a thorn in the president's side but he made an excellent point over the weekend. After all the lawfare and abuse he suffered leading up to the 2024 election, were he any part of Epstein's horrific crimes they must certainly have already used it against him. Even as the Russia hoax points directly to Barack Obama, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project says don't expect him to be indicted due to presidential immunity. The contentious relationship with Jerome Powell continues but President Trump says firing him would be "messy." Will the chair of the federal reserve lower interest rates as requested by President Trump? E.J. Antoni is the Chief Economist at the heritage Foundation and he is here to unpack it all. Featuring: Josh Hammer Senior Counsel | Article III Project https://www.article3project.org/ E.J. Antoni Chief Economist | Heritage Foundation https://www.heritage.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ 3️⃣ Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.Featuring:Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of LawL. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCEric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertiesHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Co-hosts Patrick Halley, WIA CEO and President, and Jim Fryer, Inside Towers Managing Editor, recently chatted with Arpan Sura, Senior Counsel to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and Chief AI Officer, on their Wireless Water Cooler podcast.  In this lively talk, Sura discusses a variety of issues including the Commission's Build America agenda focused on unleashing high-speed infrastructure builds, restoring America's leadership in wireless, and strengthening America's tower and telecom workforce. Sura also discusses Carr's “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative, focused on eliminating outdated and unnecessary regulations, among many other priorities.Support the show

Welcome to CURE America, hosted by Donald T. Eason, President of CURE—the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Joining the discussion are Marty Dannenfelser, Vice President for Government Relations at CURE; Kris A. Ullman, President of Eagle Forum; and Jonathan Alexandre, Senior Counsel at Liberty Counsel Action. The panel unpacks the “One Big Beautiful Bill” signed by President Trump on July 4, 2025, analyzing its content and implications. The episode includes a speech by Mike Johnson, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, a Louisiana Republican known for advocating conservative policies, faith, family, and American exceptionalism since 2023. The bill is presented as a landmark of the America First agenda and fulfillment of 2024 election promises by voters who rejected open borders, inflationary spending, and political division. Johnson highlights the bill's unifying effects across Black, Hispanic, Jewish, union, and suburban communities by promoting common-sense reforms. It permanently extends the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, averting 2026 tax hikes and offering families an average annual savings of $10,000. Major components include raising the Child Tax Credit to $2,200 (indexed to inflation), increasing the adoption credit to $5,000, exempting tips and overtime from taxation, and raising the estate tax exemption to $15–30 million. The bill encourages investment through full expensing of equipment and research, targeting a 1.2% boost in GDP. Welfare reforms implement work requirements (20–80 hours per month) for able-bodied adults on Medicaid or SNAP, while focusing assistance on vulnerable populations, excluding illegal immigrants, and cutting $1.5 trillion in government waste. Planned Parenthood is defunded for one year, with resources redirected to community health centers. Education policy includes permanent Opportunity Zones and a $1,700 scholarship credit to help students leave failing public schools. Border security receives $170.7 billion in funding: $51.6 billion for completing the wall, 116,000 detention beds, 13,000 officers and agents, and reimbursements to Texas. The bill emphasizes law enforcement, reducing illegal crossings, and restoring American global leadership through increased NATO spending, ceasefire initiatives, and trade deals. Though adding $3 trillion to the national deficit in the short term, the bill is framed as an investment in national strength, economic stability, and opportunity. Built on principles of liberty and self-governance, the bill seeks to deliver measurable results.

Bongani Bingwa speaks to Advocate Paul Pretorius SC, Senior Counsel at the Johannesburg Bar and former Chief Evidence Leader at the Zondo Commission, about the newly announced Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, tasked with investigating alleged deep-rooted dysfunction in South Africa’s law enforcement sector. With the terms of reference released by President Ramaphosa just yesterday, Pretorius weighs in on whether the commission can truly cut to the heart of systemic issues or if it risks becoming yet another political whitewash. They explore critical questions around the scope, urgency, and impact of the inquiry: Will its recommendations be taken seriously? Is there institutional will and capacity to act on them? Drawing on his experience with the Zondo Commission, Pretorius provides insight into what it takes for such a process to succeed in the face of entrenched resistance and political inertia. 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station. Bongani makes sense of the news, interviews the key newsmakers of the day, and holds those in power to account on your behalf. The team bring you all you need to know to start your day Thank you for listening to a podcast from 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa broadcast on 702: https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/36edSLV or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/zEcM35T Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We are releasing today a very interesting podcast show which is also breaking news. Before I read an article by Professor Charlotte Haendler of Southern Methodist University and Professor Rawley Z. Heimer of Arizona State University titled “The Hidden Costs of Financial Services: Consumer Complaints and Financial Restitution,” I never knew that the CFPB authorized outside third-parties access to non-public data collected about consumer complaints that it received so that those third-parties could conduct studies. Professors Haendler and Heimer used that data to determine the demographics of complainants who received the most restitution versus the demographics of those who received no or little restitution. The study they conducted is described in the abstract of the article which is available here on SSRN: Financial disputes are a widespread but understudied feature of consumer financial markets. Using confidential data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), we analyze nearly two million consumer complaints filed since 2014, which have led to an average payout of $1,470 per successful complaint. The volume of complaints and total restitution have increased substantially over time, suggesting significant scope for additional compensation. When understanding who secures restitution—and why—we find little evidence that differences across firms systematically drive restitution outcomes. Instead, product complexity and consumer engagement play key roles—consumers with higher income and education (high-SES) are more likely to explicitly request refunds, claim fraud, and submit supporting documentation, making firms more responsive. Leveraging previously unexamined CFPB monitoring reviews, where the agency systematically screens company responses and issues confidential reports highlighting deficiencies, we show that regulatory scrutiny increases restitution but disproportionately benefits high-SES consumers, reinforcing individual-specific mechanisms. Our results highlight the complementary nature of regulatory interventions and suggest that financial sophistication and self-advocacy are critical determinants of consumer redress. During the webinar, the Professors answered the following questions: 1.  Why did you conduct an in-depth CFPB consumer complaints study in the first place? 2.  Why did you basically use the CFPB complaint data as a proxy for consumer disputes in the entire industry? 3.  In your paper you mostly focus on the likelihood of a complaint resulting in financial restitution (i.e., some sort of monetary relief for the troubles endured). The title of your paper is “The hidden costs of financial services: consumer complaints and financial restitution”. First of all, what do you mean by hidden costs? 4.  Was the confidential data you received from the CFPB essential in better understanding the mechanisms behind the resolution of these consumer disputes? 5.  Did you find differences in complaint outcomes depending on the type of product involved? 6.  Is there a lot of variation across companies in the likelihood to award financial restitution to a complainant? 7.   Is the likelihood of a complainant receiving restitution more about the complexity of the product and potentially how the consumer relates to it than about there being some rogue companies? 8. Do certain consumer characteristics—like income, education, and even racial and ethnic background—correlate with greater likelihood of financial restitution. 9.   How do consumer characteristics end up influencing the likelihood of restitution? 10.  Does oversight from the CFPB change how firms handle disputes and award financial restitution? 11.  What should regulators, firms, and consumers take away from this research? This is how they answered that question: (a)  It is critical to recognize that the capabilities to navigate the dispute process aren't equal across consumers. (b)  For regulators, we see that scrutiny and nudging alone do not substitute for consumer engagement. Hence the challenge is to design systems that help level the playing field, perhaps by educating the consumer more, or by flagging poorly-articulated but potentially valid complaints for extra review and documentation. (c)  For companies, this study highlights the negotiating power of the consumer in disputes, and how this negotiating power hinges on self-advocacy and financial sophistication. It could also be a wakeup call to consider how certain demographics might be struggling to understand the financial product offered and how to cater to them to reach a greater customer base and higher levels of consumer satisfaction. (d)  For consumers, it's a reminder that being specific, using strong language, and submitting documentation really matters in getting your voice heard. Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former Chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted this podcast show.

A listener got in touch with the show this week, frustrated by how complicated the process of setting up power of attorney in Ireland can be. But, what exactly is that?Rebecca Rodgers and Áine Hynes, Senior Counsel at St.John Solicitors joins to discuss.

0:00 - Police break Will McNeil's window after traffic stop...but… 9:56 - Russia collusion/Obama treason 31:29 - Obama has tried this before 47:36 - $100M in fire aid raised at concert and nothing to the LA fire victims 53:04 - The government grocer 01:09:15 - Jennifer Bos, mother of Megan Bos, speaks out on the urgent need for changes to Illinois’ SAFE-T Act after the man accused of concealing her daughter’s body was released pretrial 01:35:52 - Noted economist Stephen Moore: Jerome Powell has been completely incompetent. Get more Steve @StephenMoore 01:50:14 - Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project, explains why President Obama is likely shielded from prosecution — but others involved remain at risk of conspiracy charges. For more on the Article III Project article3project.org 02:06:51 - John Anthony, host of Detroit’s Morning Answer and Black & Right Radio, opens up about the loss of his son to suicide and the deeply personal journey that led to his new book, Letters to John Boy. John is Host of Detroit’s Morning Answer FM 92.7 – weekdays 6am – 8am CT & Host of Black & Right Radio – Saturdays 4pm – 7pm on 560 the AnswerSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Check out these great sponsors of today's show: Masa Chips You're probably watching the Sean Spicer Show right now and thinking “hmm, I wish I had something healthy and satisfying to snack on…” Well Masa Chips are exactly what you are looking for. Big corporations use cheap nasty seed oils that can cause inflammation and health issues. Masa cut out all the bad stuff and created a tortilla chip with just 3 ingredients: organic nixtamalized corn, sea salt, and 100 percent grass-fed beef tallow. Snacking on MASA chips feels different—you feel satisfied, light, and energetic, with no crash, bloat, or sluggishness. So head to https://MASAChips.com/SEAN to get  25% off your first order. Riverbend Ranch Riverbend Ranch has been around for 35 years, selecting cattle that have higher marbling and tenderness than any other beef. You cannot get this beef in your grocery store. Riverbend Ranch ages their beef for 21 days and you'll find it more tender and flavorful than even the finest restaurants. So, if you're ready to have the best steak of your life, head to https://www.riverbendranch.com. Use promo code: SEAN to get $20 of your first order. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard releases a report showing that President Obama was directly responsible for the Russia hoax. Showing how the Obama administration received intel that Russia did not and was unable to interfere with the 2016 election. The administration weaponized and politicized false intelligence to subvert the American people. Gabbard submitted this report to the DOJ to launch a criminal investigation on Obama and his administration. Along with this Todd Blanche the Deputy Attorney General is set to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell to uncover individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein who have committed crimes. The Dignity Act was introduced by Republican Congresswoman Maria Salazar. The bill has support from other moderate leaning Republican Congress Members and claims that is does not provide amnesty, government handouts or citizenship to illegal immigrants. Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project is with me today to unpack it all! Featuring: Will Chamberlain Senior Counsel | Article III Project https://www.article3project.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ 3️⃣ Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Title IX's guarantee against discrimination on the basis of sex in education has been the subject of intensely differing Executive Branch interpretations over the years. These disputes include fundamental disagreements over the meaning of the word "sex" as used in the law, the manner in which the law applies to sex-separated sports and private facilities, the role of Title IX coordinators in responding to sexual harassment, and the due process to which individuals are entitled in campus disciplinary proceedings.Join us for a discussion on the right about how the ever-changing enforcement of Title IX has affected students, families, educators, and institutions and a potential legislative solution to ever-changing interpretations of Title IX.Featuring:Tyler W. Coward, Lead Counsel, Government Affairs, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationPaul F. Zimmerman, Senior Counsel, Policy & Regulatory, Defense of Freedom Institute(Moderator) Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute

Yes, that's a real crime. Yes, you'll probably hear more about it soon. Will Chamberlain is Senior Counsel at the Article 3 Project.

In this episode we discuss best practices and the dos and don'ts of legal ethics when facing searches and seizures of your electronic devices at the US border, and how best to protect your and your clients' privileged and confidential information. To discuss this urgent topic, we speak with three experts: Nakia Matthews, Senior Legal Ethics Counsel at the D.C. Bar, Kevin Carroll, Litigation and Investigations Partner at Fluet, and former Senior Counsel to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, and Erik Laykin, CEO and Managing Partner of Global Data Risk LLC and global authority on digital security. Please join us as we tackle and explore in a very lively (in person) conversation: (1) legal professionals' ethics obligations; (2) the rules, laws, and practices that apply at the US border to legal professionals' electronic devices and data; and (3) best practices for legal professionals in terms of electronic device security and hygiene at the US border.Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.To learn more about or join the D.C. Bar International Law Community, ⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE.⁠⁠⁠

Vincent explains what is happening with a case in NJ about a parent not getting notified or being able to make a decision, about his daughter's gender getting thrown around at school. Ken and Vincent break down the right procedures and ways to go about this.

Vincent explains what is happening with a case in NJ about a parent not getting notified or being able to make a decision, about his daughter's gender getting thrown around at school. Ken and Vincent break down the right procedures and ways to go about this. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The podcast show we are releasing today features Professor Jonathan Gould of University of California (Berkeley) Law School who discusses his recent article co-written with Professor Rory Van Loo of Boston University School of Law which was recently published in the University of Chicago Law Review titled “Legislating for the Future”. The introduction of the article describes “legislating for the future” as follows: Public policy must address threats that will manifest in the future. Legislation enacted today affects the severity of tomorrow's harms arising from biotechnology, climate change, and artificial intelligence. This Essay focuses on Congress's capacity to confront future threats. It uses a detailed case study of financial crises to show the limits and possibilities of legislation to prevent future catastrophes. By paying insufficient attention to Congress, the existing literature does not recognize the full nature and extent of the institutional challenges in regulating systemic risk. Fully recognizing those challenges reveals important design insights for future-risk legislation. During the podcast, we discuss the dynamics around enacting legislation through Congress that aims to increase the stability of the financial system and prevent financial crises. We discuss with Professor Gould about why passing this sort of legislation is so difficult and what Congress might be able to do about that. We consider the following questions: 1.  What are the basic dynamics that make it so hard to pass financial stability legislation? 2.    How does the structure of Congress affect the difficulty of passing financial stability legislation? 3.   We have seen some big bills lately, like Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and the big taxing and spending bill from Trump this year.  Why is financial regulation harder to enact than these other types of legislation? 4.   Has it gotten easier or harder over time to enact financial regulation? 5.  What happens after financial stability legislation is enacted? 6.   What can Congress do to enhance its capacity in this area? 7.   What types of legislative drafting techniques are likely to be especially promising? 8.   What role is there for federal agencies to play in augmenting congressional capacity? 9.  What role is there for states or private plaintiffs to play in augmenting congressional capacity? 10. What relevance does this all have beyond financial regulation? 11. In light of the fact that the article was published before the 2024 election and change in administration are any of Professor Gould's conclusions altered by more recent events? This podcast was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group.

Doug McClure, Senior Counsel at Northrop Grumman, shares lessons learned from more than two decades of in-house practice across heavy industry, infrastructure, and now one of the world's largest aerospace and defence contractors.Doug reflects on his eight years supporting Northrop Grumman's European operations—navigating a highly regulated, high-stakes sector that demands clarity, trust, and creativity. He begins with the cornerstone of his approach: communication. Doug explains why over-communicating, building personal credibility, and managing expectations are non-negotiable for in-house lawyers, particularly when working across global teams and cultural contexts.His second lesson is all about solutions. Saying “no” is sometimes necessary, but more often than not, Doug argues, the real skill is finding a way forward—even if it means finding a “third way” that balances business ambition with risk.Finally, Doug talks about the importance of managing expectations: balancing competing priorities, under-promising and over-delivering, and ensuring stakeholders feel heard—especially in the high-pressure, fast-changing world of defence procurement.Guest Recommendations: • Podcast: The Rest is History – Doug particularly enjoyed the episode on Hannibal and the Battle of Cannae • Book: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari – An engrossing exploration of how humans have adapted and shaped the worldAbout Heriot Brown: Heriot Brown is a leading global recruitment business specialising in the in-house legal market. We help lawyers find fulfilment in their careers by matching them with exceptional in-house opportunities, while fostering a thriving community of legal professionals who share insights, experiences, and growth.

This episode of Health Care Beat kicks off a multi-part series exploring the intersection of artificial intelligence, health care, and the evolving legal landscape that organizations must navigate to stay compliant and adaptable. Co-hosts Chris DeMeo and Amanda Genovese are joined by Rachel See, Senior Counsel in Seyfarth's Washington, DC office. Together, they examine AI's transformative impact on health care, from reshaping patient care to revolutionizing operations and decision-making. They also addresses key regulatory challenges, including compliance with FDA, FTC, and HHS guidelines, as well as the complexities of data privacy under HIPAA, GDPR, and state laws. Rachel provides insights into the emerging risks of AI-related litigation and liability, offering practical advice for organizations as they navigate these legal complexities. Looking ahead, they discuss predictions for AI's role in health care over the next 5-10 years, explore upcoming legislative trends, and provide strategies for health care organizations and legal teams to proactively prepare for the rapidly evolving future of artificial intelligence. Read the full transcript of this episode here: https://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/podcast_transcripts/HCB_Episode52.pdf

Over the past decade, electricity prices for consumers have risen by more than 22% on average. At the same time, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)—the international body responsible for setting reliability and security standards for the North American power grid—has issued increasingly urgent warnings about the growing risks to the U.S. electric power system's reliability.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency established by Congress, plays a central role in this space. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC oversees the interstate transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and is responsible for reviewing, approving, and enforcing NERC’s reliability standards.Nearly 30 years ago, FERC fundamentally changed how it regulates the electric power industry. Did those changes contribute to the growing risks to the future reliability of the U.S. electric power system we now face? Or have they helped prevent even greater problems? Most importantly, what should federal electric regulation look like going forward?Join us for a dynamic and in-depth conversation with two seasoned experts as they explore these critical questions about the future of electricity regulation in the United States.Featuring:John Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General of VirginiaAri Peskoe, Director, Electricity Law Initiative, Harvard Law School(Moderator) Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law

The National Labor Relations Board is operating without a quorum and its case backlog is continuing to grow. Now the Trump Administration is proposing a smaller budget and fewer staff. Here to help us understand the details and the implications for employers and unions is Senior Counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department at Proskauer, Josh Fox.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The podcast show we are releasing this week focuses generally on the so-called “Unitary Executive Theory” and specifically on the legality of President Trump firing without cause the Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and the members of other independent agencies, despite language in the governing statutes that prohibit the President from firing a member without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor holding that the firing of an FTC Commissioner by the President is unlawful if done without cause. Our guest is Patrick Sobkowski who teaches constitutional law, courts and public policy, and American politics at Marquette University. His scholarship focuses on constitutional and administrative law, specifically the administrative state and its relationship to the other branches of government. Our show began with an explanation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” which is defined as a constitutional law theory according to which the President has sole authority over the executive branch including independent federal agencies. It is based on the so-called “vesting clause “of the Constitution which vests all executive power in the President. The theory often comes up in disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch (including Federal agencies); transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to control agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope. More expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan Administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices. We then discussed a litany of Supreme Court opinions dealing with the question of whether the President has the unfettered right to remove executive agency employees: a. Myers v. US (1926) b. Humphrey's Executor (1935) c. Morrison v. Olson (1988) d. Seila Law (2020) We then discussed Trump's removals of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board and the Supreme Court's opinion and order staying the lower court's order that the removals were unlawful. In addition to casting doubt on the continued viability of Humphrey's Executor, the Court included dicta to the effect that the logic of its opinion about the NLRB and the MSPB would not apply to the Federal Reserve Board because the Fed is not really an executive agency and that its functions are more akin to the functions performed by the First Bank and Second Bank of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast. The podcast recording is here.

This week on CMDA Matters, we bring you a powerful plenary address from our National Convention in St. Louis, featuring Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending Freedom. A key figure in the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case and lead counsel in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, Erin shares a compelling behind-the-scenes look at the legal battles shaping the future of life and conscience in America. With clarity and conviction, she highlights CMDA's ongoing role in defending the unborn, protecting pregnancy centers, and standing for truth in a post-Roe world. Whether or not you've attended a CMDA gathering in person, this episode offers a glimpse into the passion, purpose, and unity that defines our mission.

Mahmoud v. Taylor concerns the question of whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs.In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed.On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Join us for a breakdown of this decision and its implications.Featuring:Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Listen now to a conversation with Aaron and Stuart Roth, of Counsel to the American Center for Law and Justice and Senior Counsel of the European Law and Justice, about the aftermath of Israel's war with the terrorist Iranian regime. What might the future hold?

July 2, 2025 COL. JOHN EIDSMOE,Senior Counsel & Resident Scholar@ Foundation For Moral Law, retiredAir Force Lt. Colonel & Judge Advocate& retired Mississippi State Guard Colo-nel & Chaplain, Professor of Constitu-tional Law @ the Oakbrook College ofLaw & Government Policy, a Professorof Christian Apologetics for the Instituteof Lutheran Theology & Chafer Theolo-gical Seminary, ordained pastor […]

In recent years, a flurry of lawsuits has been launched nationwide against religious organizations, raising fraud and other claims related to tithing and church donations. These challenges generally argue that church leaders falsely claimed they would only put donations to one use, but instead put them to another. These cases, which have been heard in the 9th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits, as well as multi-district litigation in federal court in Utah, raise church autonomy issues, such as the extent to which religious leaders can determine how to use donations made to the organization. Additionally, at least one of these cases raises the procedural question of whether church autonomy should be treated more like immunity from suit, and allow for interlocutory appeals on church autonomy matters. On this FedSoc forum, Daniel Blomberg and Dr. James C. Phillips will run through several of these cases, discussing these and related issues.Featuring:Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Dr. James C. Phillips, Associate Professor & Director, Constitutional Government Initiative, Wheatley Institute, Brigham Young University

in July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to end the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case asked whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. On June 26, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 in favor of South Carolina, affirming the state's right to exclude abortion providers from its Medicaid program. Tune in to this Courthouse Steps podcast as we break down the case and its recent decision. Featuring: John J. Bursch, Senior Counsel and VP, Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Moderator: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom

John Stemberger is president of Liberty Counsel Action & Senior Counsel of Liberty Counsel. He's been a conservative policy advocate for over 30 years. Abigail Forman is public policy analyst and a writer for Liberty Counsel Action. She is a former Minnesota state legislator and former Director of Public Policy for Right to Life UK. She is primary author of a groundbreaking, academic white paper exposing the horror of aborted babies from chemical abortions being flushed into our water system. For multiple decades, regardless of the administration in Washington, we've heard the mantra about clean air and water. As a result, environmental policies are set. In light of that, Jim noted a new report that has recently been issued titled: Abortion in our Water: Chemical Home Abortions and the Disposition of Aborted Fetal Remains. It notes that under the Trump administration, having the cleanest air and water in the world for generations is a priority. However, on a daily basis, our waterways are being contaminated by chemical abortion drugs and human remains. This is due to the fact that American women are often left alone at home to endure the agonizing process of expelling their pregnancy as they're often instructed by abortion providers to dispose of the remains of their aborted babies by flushing them down the toilet. This edition of Crosstalk covers much ground as it begins by looking at the back-story of this topic which takes us back to the year 2000 when chemical abortions were first approved by the FDA. At that time, such abortions were small in number. Today, they represent somewhere between 64% to 70% of all abortions.

John Stemberger is president of Liberty Counsel Action & Senior Counsel of Liberty Counsel. He's been a conservative policy advocate for over 30 years. Abigail Forman is public policy analyst and a writer for Liberty Counsel Action. She is a former Minnesota state legislator and former Director of Public Policy for Right to Life UK. She is primary author of a groundbreaking, academic white paper exposing the horror of aborted babies from chemical abortions being flushed into our water system. For multiple decades, regardless of the administration in Washington, we've heard the mantra about clean air and water. As a result, environmental policies are set. In light of that, Jim noted a new report that has recently been issued titled: Abortion in our Water: Chemical Home Abortions and the Disposition of Aborted Fetal Remains. It notes that under the Trump administration, having the cleanest air and water in the world for generations is a priority. However, on a daily basis, our waterways are being contaminated by chemical abortion drugs and human remains. This is due to the fact that American women are often left alone at home to endure the agonizing process of expelling their pregnancy as they're often instructed by abortion providers to dispose of the remains of their aborted babies by flushing them down the toilet. This edition of Crosstalk covers much ground as it begins by looking at the back-story of this topic which takes us back to the year 2000 when chemical abortions were first approved by the FDA. At that time, such abortions were small in number. Today, they represent somewhere between 64% to 70% of all abortions.

Trusting Trump isn't a Controversial position these days, based on his track record. But nobody would want you to admit that. Will Chamberlain is Senior Counsel at the Article 3 Project.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

Parents' rights to raise their children in agreement with their values are being undermined in schools, medical offices, and even churches. Vincent Wagner, Senior Counsel with the Center for Parental Rights at Alliance Defending Freedom, joins us to explain why a 100-year-old decision is impacting parents' rights today. And we look at a camp that is suing Colorado for imposing transgender access in private spaces. Alliance Defending Freedom (https://adflegal.org/)

Our podcast show being released today is Part 2 of our two-part series featuring two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. Part 1 of our two-part series was released last Thursday, June 12.  The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future?11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.” During this part of the podcast show, we discussed the fact that the CFPB has entered into agreements with a few companies that had previously entered into consent agreements with former Director Chopra. After the recording of this podcast, the Federal District Court that presided over the Townstone Financial enforcement litigation involving alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act refused to approve the rescission or undoing of the consent agreement based on Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of the strong public policy of preserving the finality of judgments.

Our podcast shows being released today and next Wednesday, June 18 feature two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future? 11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.”

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Featuring: Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLCPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

The ubiquitous deployment of both wireless and wireline technology is critical to 5G and other next generation services. However, lengthy permitting processes, as well as burdensome NEPA and NHPA requirements, continue to slow infrastructure builds. As the Trump Administration continues to prioritize streamlining rules and regulations, as well as promoting access to reliable, affordable broadband internet, all eyes are on the FCC, NTIA, and the Hill to see what may come next. This webinar features Paul Beaudry, Vice President of Regulatory and Government Affairs for Cogeco, Tony Clark, Executive Director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Caroline Van Wie, Vice President of Federal Regulatory at AT&T. Danielle Thumann, Senior Counsel to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, will moderate and participate in the discussion.

Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. On June 5th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, holding it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold a tax exemption on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because the organization did not proselytize or limit services to only fellow Catholics. Join us for an expert analysis of the decision and its implications.Featuring:Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at Article III Project. President Trump Nailed It By Nominating Emil Bove, And The Establishment Meltdown Proves It

In 1963, a time of heightened suppression of Black Americans to their civil rights, President Kennedy invited 244 lawyers to the White House, calling on them to use their expertise and influence to move the civil rights struggle from the streets into the courts. That call to action launched The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonprofit that for 63 years has tackled discrimination against people of color and championed the right to full participation in civic life. In this episode of Power Station, I am honored to feature Rob Weiner, Director of the Committee's Voting Rights Project. which challenges efforts at the state and national levels to disenfranchise voters of color. It is notable and moving that until recently Rob was Senior Counsel at the Voting Rights Division at the US Department of Justice. He explains that under the Trump administration, the DOJ has abandoned its mission to protect the right to vote and is instead trafficking in disproven claims of voting scams and election fraud. Rob and his colleagues at the Lawyers Committee are boldly pushing back against executive orders, redistricting schemes and narratives that seek to weaken hard-won civil rights. And they are winning. Hear him!      

  This week, I'm so excited to share a podcast with one of my former clients, Jaymon Ballew.  Jaymon is Senior Counsel for The Major League Soccer and a first-generation college and professional graduate.  He shares his experiences navigating corporate America as a Black man, the importance of understanding the unwritten rules of the professional world, and how our work together helped him get clarity and land his dream job in sports.    In this podcast, we do a deep dive into: How to reconnect with your true passions when you feel lost. How to build support networks and mentors who can provide guidance and validation and help you navigate the unwritten rules of corporate America.   Why preparing and doing mock interviews is critical to success.   How to transition from law firm practice to your first in-house role. Why it's important to have an open mindset to pursuing opportunities even if it means taking a different career path. What you can do to confidently negotiate your worth. How you can prepare to navigate predominantly White spaces when you're a Black man. The importance of prioritizing mental health and how to recover from burnout.   Connect with us: Learn more about Jaymon on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaymonballew/ or instagram @thej.ball. Follow Samorn on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/samornselim/. Get a copy of Samorn's book, “Belonging: Self Love Lessons From A Workaholic Depressed Insomniac Lawyer” at https://tinyurl.com/2dk5hr2f.  Get weekly career tips by signing up for our advice column at www.careerunicorns.com.  Schedule a free 30-minute build your dream career consult by sending a message at www.careerunicorns.com.   

It's Thursday, June 5th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark and Adam McManus Christian groups in India to speak out against persecution June 9 Christian groups across India are organizing a protest against persecution of Christians on Monday, June 9. The National Christian Front noted, “Our Christian brothers and sisters are enduring brutal attacks and growing intolerance from anti-social elements. This is not merely a Christian issue — it is a grave concern for humanity, for peace, and for the values enshrined in our Constitution.” Christians suffered over 600 incidents of violence and discrimination in India last year. The country is ranked 11th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of most difficult places to be a Christian. U.K. Christian groups calling for prayer on June 11 In the United the Kingdom, Christian groups are calling for a day of prayer on Wednesday, June 11 for protecting human life. This comes as lawmakers are considering bills to legalize assisted suicide.  Listen to comments from Ciarán Kelly, director of The Christian Institute.  KELLY: “This is a crucial time for our country. So, it's vital that Christians are asking the God, Who made Heaven and Earth, that He would overrule in all these things, to protect vulnerable people from this careless and callous bill.” In 1 Timothy 1:1-2, the Apostle Paul wrote, “I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” Trump overturns pro-abortion Biden rule In the United States, the Trump administration rescinded a pro-abortion rule on Tuesday that came from the Biden administration.  The rule tried to force hospital emergency rooms to offer abortions even if the state restricted them.  Matt Bowman, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said, “Doctors—especially in emergency rooms—are tasked with preserving life. The Trump administration has rolled back a harmful Biden-era mandate that compelled doctors to end unborn lives, in violation of their deeply held beliefs.” Trump raises tariffs on steel imports President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to raise tariffs on steel imports. The order doubles tariffs on steel and aluminum coming into the country from 25% to 50%. The levy will affect steel exporters in Canada, Mexico, and many countries in Europe. However, the tariff on steel from the United Kingdom remains at 25% as the U.S. and U.K. work out a trade deal.  Dust from Africa's Saharan Desert hits America Over the weekend, a massive plume of dust made its way to Florida all the way from the Saharan Desert in Africa.  Such dust plumes are known as the Saharan Air Layer and typically cross the Atlantic each year. The current plume is the biggest one to reach the U.S. so far this season. It measures nearly 2,000 miles wide and 750 miles from north to south.  The dust can diminish air quality but also creates spectacular sunrises and sunsets.  Only 1 in 100 Evangelical pastors leave ministry annually A report from Lifeway Research found that only 1 out of 100 Evangelical pastors leave the ministry each year.  This low rate has remained steady for the last 10 years despite many pastors acknowledging their work is very demanding and even overwhelming.  Scott McConnell with Lifeway Research said, “The rate of pastors departing the pastorate is steady and quite low given the demands of the role. Many of those leaving the pastorate feel they are moving at God's direction to another role of ministry.” In 2 Timothy 4:2, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Preach the Word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” The American Miracle movie shows God's intervention in U.S. The Left insists that there's nothing special about America. But a new docudrama contends that God inspired its founding.  The American Miracle – Our Nation is No Accident hits the silver screen in 1,000 theaters nationwide for 3 days only -- Monday, June 9th through Wednesday, June 11th. Inspired by Michael Medved's bestseller, this exciting, entertaining, and edifying motion picture experience was created in anticipation of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.  ‘ Medved appeared on The 700 Club. MEDVED: “America is no accident. All of our most important leaders, from Washington to Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt -- all of our leaders have understood that America has a divine purpose.” Consider God's protection of George Washington – the Father of our Country -- in a ferocious battle in 1755 during the French and Indian War. During the Battle of Monongahela, 69 of 70 officers were either killed or wounded. Washington was the only officer who was not shot off his horse.  In fact, two horses were shot from underneath him. Yet he lived. Even a Native American chief later said they couldn't touch Washington. Shockingly, after the battle, he found numerous bullet holes in his jacket and bullet fragments in his hair, but he was miraculously unscathed. No wonder they called him “Bulletproof.”  Visit the website https://americanmiraclemovie.com/, watch the trailer, click on Tickets, and type in your zipcode to get tickets for next week at a theater near you. Watch the trailer. Worldview listener in Florida speaks up On Wednesday, I was delighted to receive 23 emails at Adam@TheWorldview.com about what listeners enjoy about this newscast. Amy Cool from St. Cloud, Florida wrote, “I like that I can trust The Worldview newscast to report the truth from a Biblical perspective. I like the Scriptures referenced as they pertain to a particular story because it shows the relevance of the Bible to our life today. That's often hard for people to see when they haven't grown up in a home where the Bible was read or explained.” 14 Worldview listeners gave $1,420 to fund our $123,500 annual budget Toward this week's $30,875 goal to fund one-fourth of The Worldview newscast's annual budget by this Friday, June 6th, 14 listeners stepped up to the plate on Wednesday by 7:15pm Central last night.  Our thanks to Grace in Duncanville, Texas, Greg in Rochester, New Hampshire, Andy in Santa Barbara, California, and George in Carrollton, Missouri – each of whom gave $25. We also appreciate Jalynn in Sapulpa, Oklahoma, Jon in Granger, Indiana, and Steven in Jacksonville, Florida – each of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Nancy in Peabody, Massachusetts, Kevin in North Bend, Oregon, and Robert in Plano, Texas – each of whom gave $100. And we appreciate the generosity of Paula in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana who pledged $10/month for 12 months for a gift of $120, Dawn in Troy, Montana who gave $150, Amy in Seminole, Texas who gave $300, and Dawn in Smithville, Texas who pledged $25/month for 12 months for a gift of $300. Those 14 listeners gave a total of $1,420. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $6,352 (People clapping sound effect)  We missed our goal of 20 donors by just 6 donors. That means by this Friday, we still need to raise $24,523.    Whether it's Thanksgiving or Christmas, we churn out a weekday broadcast 52 weeks per year. It's a commitment we're glad to make, but we need help to cover the cost. Would you prayerfully consider investing $100 per month for 12 months into this ministry, helping to pay for the work of the six-member Worldview team?  If 20 of you made that pledge we would hit our Friday, June 6th goal one day early. Just go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.   And click on the button that indicates a recurring donation if you want to give monthly. Thanks for investing your resources into this media ministry that champions the truth.  Our plumbline is Jesus Christ Himself. Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, June 5th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

0:00 - KJP announces new book 12:58 - ICE in South Loop 30:10 - Trump 2.0 announces travel restrictions 2.0 50:00 - Battalion Commander FDNY (Ret.) & member of the board at Tunnel to Towers Foundation, Jack Oehm, shares Tunnel to Towers’ mission of helping America’s heroes by providing mortgage-free homes to the families of fallen first responders — and explains how you can help by joining Dan & Amy at the AM 560 Golf Outing on June 18. For more on Tunnel to Towers t2t.org. To sign up for the AM 560 Golf Outing 560theAnswer.com/golf 01:00:38 - Jasmine Crockett: 2025 is basically same as 1950s as 1850s in terms GOP 01:06:55 - Have you considered becoming gay? 01:26:13 - River Page, reporter at The Free Press: How the Democrats Lost Men Like Me. Follow River on X @river_is_nice 01:45:16 - Senior Counsel at the Article III Project, Will Chamberlain, calls Trump’s Travel Ban 2.0 reasonable and legally solid. For more on the Article III Project article3project.org 02:02:37 - Daniel Henninger, writer for the WSJ editorial page, praises Trump’s approach to higher education reform as long overdueSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.