Podcasts about seventh circuit

This week on Registry Matters: the Seventh Circuit gutted an AI-generated CSAM possession count after the government conceded that no real child was depicted — a ruling with major implications for how prosecutors charge synthetic imagery cases. We also walk through a practical framework for vetting a lawmaker before you approach them, judging legislators by their track record of actually passing bills and by how safe their seat is, rather than by party label. Show Notes [02:36] How to Vet a Lawmaker Before You Ask — How to evaluate legislators on their bill-passing record and electoral safety margin instead of party affiliation. [14:54] Seventh Circuit Guts an AI CSAM Charge — The Seventh Circuit voided an AI-generated CSAM possession count after the government conceded no real child existed. Chapters [02:36] How to Vet a Lawmaker Before You Ask [14:54] Seventh Circuit Guts an AI CSAM Charge Subscribe & Support Registry Matters: https://www.registrymatters.co/ FYP Education: https://fypeducation.org/ Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com Leave an old fashioned voice message: 747-227-4477 Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57 Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://fypeducation.org/shop/ Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280 RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy. To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

On Monday the Supreme Court let the President keep building a 400 million dollar ballroom on the White House grounds. It did not rule that the ballroom is legal. It ruled that the people who sued could not prove they were injured enough to be allowed through the door, and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented and called the project likely unlawful. Nobody has ruled on that question. Nobody may ever rule on it. That is the thread running through this entire episode. The check still exists on paper. The question is whether anybody can actually reach it. In Trump Corruption Watch, newly renamed because this beat covers a lot more than money: the Venezuela oil concession, where Trump announced majority US control of more than 65 billion barrels at what he called no cost to the American taxpayer. I break down the actual structure, a 100 year concession granted by an interim government the United States installed by force in January, with the US holding 55 percent of a joint venture whose private partner still has not been publicly named. Then the ballroom ruling and what standing doctrine actually means for every citizen lawsuit against the federal government. Then the final USPS mail ballot rule, the 24 state lawsuit, and a whistleblower disclosure released by Senator Blumenthal alleging the agency raced an untested ballot portal toward launch six weeks before the midterms. Then Pete Hegseth pulling at least 45 officers off Army promotion lists this year, more than half of them women or Black officers, and the Republican congressman who defended it by saying we serve at the goodwill of the President. I also open with a correction from the August 26 show, because I got ahead of the evidence on the airport trademark story and that is on me. In Nuanced News: the strike on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz and why Congress reached the war powers check twice, with Republicans crossing both times, and picked a vehicle that could not bind anything. The 50 percent Canada tariffs running on a 96 year old law no court has ever tested, because nobody can afford to sue. And a Seventh Circuit ruling almost every outlet flattened, where a federal judge told the Supreme Court he can see the problem and is not free to fix it. Plus Research on a Dime on the Senate math and Ed Markey beating Seth Moulton while badly outspent, a listener question from Iowa's 2nd District about four candidates on the ballot and only two on the debate stage, and Good News including the first FDA approved drug targeting the mutation behind most pancreatic cancers. CHAPTERS 00:00 Cold open 01:46 Welcome and the thread running through tonight 03:38 Clip: the AI generated fake political commentator networks 07:41 Trump Corruption Watch, and why the segment got renamed 09:05 Correction from the August 26 show 10:35 The Venezuela oil concession and the partner nobody will name 19:53 The White House ballroom and the 5 to 4 ruling 26:07 The USPS mail ballot rule and the whistleblower disclosure 37:08 Hegseth and the Army promotion boards 44:03 Iran, Larak Island, and the war powers vote that could not bind 52:50 The Canada tariffs nobody is suing over 58:26 The Seventh Circuit ruling almost everyone flattened 1:05:08 Quick hits: Ukraine, data centers, Meta, Flock, hush money 1:09:43 Research on a Dime: the Senate arithmetic 1:10:49 Massachusetts: Markey beats Moulton 1:12:30 Breakdown in the Public: Iowa's 2nd District debate access 1:18:45 ALIVE Podcast Network 1:19:28 Good News the media does not talk about 1:23:18 Close Got a story you want covered? Email thetrendgoldandfaith@gmail.com Share your own political solutions: https://www.reddit.com/r/policysolutions/ RESOURCES Podcast website: https://www.purplepoliticalbreakdown.com ALIVE Podcast Network: Catch a lot of great podcasts like my own, led by amazing Black voices. https://alivepodcastnetwork.com/ Living Room Conversations: Building bridges through meaningful dialogue across political divides. https://livingroomconversations.org/ Us United: A movement for unity that challenges Americans to step out of their bubbles and connect across differences. https://www.us-united.org/ OtherWeb: An AI based platform that filters news without paywalls, clickbait, or junk. https://otherweb.com/ Equal Vote Coalition and STAR Voting: Voting methods that ensure every vote counts equally. https://www.equal.vote/star Substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/purplepoliticalbreakdown All links: https://linktr.ee/purplepoliticalbreakdown Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/ptPAsZtHC9 Political solutions without political bias.

This Day in Legal History: The First Hague ConventionOn July 29, 1899, delegates from twenty-six nations signed the first Hague Convention, the product of an international peace conference convened at the initiative of Russia's Tsar Nicholas II. It was one of the founding moments of modern international law—an attempt, at the close of a violent century, to subject the conduct of war and the resolution of disputes between nations to legal rules rather than raw power.The 1899 Convention did two enduring things. First, it began the codification of the laws and customs of war—rules on the treatment of prisoners, the protection of civilians, and limits on certain weapons—laying groundwork that would grow into the modern law of armed conflict and, eventually, the Geneva Conventions. Second, and just as important, it created the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, the first standing international institution designed to let states resolve their disputes through neutral arbitration instead of on the battlefield. The idea was radical for its time: that sovereign nations would voluntarily submit their quarrels to a legal process.The Hague system was, of course, imperfect—the twentieth century that followed was the bloodiest in human history, and the conventions did not prevent two world wars. But the significance of July 29, 1899 is that it planted the institutional and conceptual seeds of everything that came after: the League of Nations, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the international criminal tribunals, and the entire architecture of treaties and adjudication that structures relations between states today. It reflects an enduring aspiration—one that runs through so much of what we cover—that disputes are better settled by law than by force. It's a fitting backdrop for a day whose stories, in their own ways, are all about turning conflict over to the legal system rather than settling it by other means.A federal appeals court has revived a proposed class action accusing Chobani of deceiving consumers by marketing some of its Greek yogurt as “zero sugar.” The Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled that consumers can proceed with claims under state consumer-protection laws, because Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt contains about four grams per serving of allulose, a naturally occurring sweetener. Here's the wrinkle that makes this interesting. Allulose is chemically a sugar, but the body barely metabolizes it, so the FDA lets manufacturers leave it out of the “sugars” lines on the Nutrition Facts panel. Chobani leaned on exactly that, saying its panel accurately shows zero grams of total and added sugar. But the court focused on the big front-of-package promise—”Zero Sugar”—and found persuasive an FDA brief explaining that “total sugars” actually includes all monosaccharides, allulose among them. Under FDA rules, a product generally can't be labeled “zero sugar” or “sugar free” unless it has less than half a gram of sugar per serving. Writing for the court, Judge Thomas Kirsch said it was not implausible that consumers—here, a couple who bought the yogurt at a Costco near Chicago—were “fooled” by that absolute promise. The significance is a reminder that the technically-accurate fine print on the back doesn't necessarily save a bold marketing claim on the front. This is how consumer-protection law polices the gap between what a label shouts and what a product actually contains, and the ruling lets the plaintiffs try to prove that gap misled shoppers.Chobani must face lawsuit over zero-sugar yogurt claim, US appeals court rules | ReutersYahoo Finance · Insurance JournaleBay and three of its former executives have agreed to pay roughly $56 million to settle a civil suit brought by a Massachusetts couple who were the targets of one of the more disturbing corporate harassment campaigns in recent memory. The couple, Ina and David Steiner, publish an e-commerce trade newsletter, and back in 2019 several eBay employees—furious over the Steiners' coverage of the company—orchestrated a campaign to terrorize them: shipping cockroaches, live spiders and fly larvae, and a bloody pig Halloween mask to their home, sending threatening messages, and conducting covert surveillance. It grew out of internal communications in which senior executives discussed taking the couple “down.” The criminal side of this played out years ago, with multiple former employees prosecuted and sentenced. This week's news is the civil resolution: eBay will pay about $46 million to the couple plus millions more in charitable contributions, and the former executives are personally on the hook—two million dollars from former CEO Devin Wenig, and smaller sums from two others. The significance here is corporate accountability, and specifically accountability for retaliation against the press. A powerful company weaponized its resources to punish two journalists for critical coverage—the kind of retaliation that strikes at the heart of a free press—and while the criminal cases addressed the individual foot soldiers, this settlement attaches a very large price tag to the company and the executives at the top. It's a stark example of the civil justice system doing what the criminal system often can't: reaching the institution and its leadership, and making them pay.eBay, former executives to pay $56 million to settle couple's harassment case | ReutersCNN · CNBCAnd finally, prosecutors have offered their most detailed account yet of why they believe activist Charlie Kirk was killed, arguing in a new court filing that the man accused of shooting him targeted Kirk for his political and religious views. Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and ally of President Trump, was shot and killed in September 2025 at a university in Utah; Tyler Robinson, who is 23, is charged in his death. In the filing, prosecutors pointed to Kirk's opposition to gay marriage and transgender rights, and cited a letter from a board member of Kirk's organization describing him as the face of a political and religious movement. They allege Robinson's own lifestyle ran contrary to Kirk's views and that he targeted Kirk because of his “political expression.” Robinson's defense attorney pushed back, arguing that the materials the state is relying on show nothing about whether Robinson actually disagreed with Kirk or what was in his mind. And that disagreement is the legal heart of this. Motive is not, strictly speaking, an element the prosecution must prove to establish murder—but it is powerful evidence, it helps a jury make sense of a killing, and in a serious case it can bear heavily on how the crime is characterized and punished. What we're watching is the perennial challenge of proving why someone did something: the state assembling external evidence to reconstruct a defendant's internal state of mind, and the defense insisting that inference isn't proof. The significance is that a case already saturated with political meaning will now turn, in part, on a genuinely hard legal question—how, and whether, prosecutors can establish motive—and the coming proceedings will test whether their theory holds up under the rules of evidence.Prosecutors say Charlie Kirk was attacked for his politics, cite anti-LGBT views | Reuters 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

It's 2A Tuesday, and Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins The Marc Cox Morning Show with a fired-up breakdown of the Seventh Circuit's latest ruling upholding Illinois' AR-15 ban — and why he's confident the Supreme Court will strike it down 6-3 once these cases finally reach them. Walters connects the dots between disarmament and tyranny, pointing to Zohran Mamdani's controversial New York City map that erased historic Italian, Irish, and Jewish neighborhoods, and warning that erasure always comes before encroachment. He draws a chilling parallel to Iran, where a disarmed population was left defenseless against takeover. Marc and Mark also revisit disgraced Florida Democrat Andrew Gillum's stunning fall from grace, and marvel at how the Left refuses to cut loose even its most radical, embarrassing candidates — from Graham Platner to Bernie Sanders' allies — while Republicans hold their own accountable. Freedom, self-defense, and hard truths — that's 2A Tuesday on The Marc Cox Morning Show. Coming up: Senator Eric Schmidt joins at the top of the hour. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #2ATuesday #MarkWalters #SecondAmendment #AR15Ban #SeventhCircuit #SCOTUS #ZohranMamdani #NYC #GunRights #AndrewGillum #GrahamPlatner #BernieSanders #SelfDefense #Conservative #GOP #FaithFamilyFreedom

The St. Louis Morning Brief opens with genuine good news for families: Governor Kehoe has signed Bentley and Mason's Law, forcing drunk drivers who kill a parent to pay child support for the children they leave behind. Marc and Kim St. Onge call it real accountability and real justice. Then a heartbreaking Metro East story — a toddler's body found near Belleville in a suspected parental kidnapping case — raises hard questions about whether the system failed a mother who says she sounded the alarm for years. Marc doesn't hold back on the Seventh Circuit's ruling upholding Illinois' semi-auto ban, calling out an activist judge — a Trump appointee, no less — for parroting anti-gun rhetoric, and predicts the Supreme Court will strike it down. Plus, the Boys and Girls Club steps up with an affordable summer program to keep St. Louis teens off the streets after dozens of curfew violations downtown, and Cardinals slugger Jordan Walker punches his ticket to the Home Run Derby — though Netflix streaming it exclusively has Marc and Kim fuming. Nicole Murray and the markets are next on The Marc Cox Morning Show. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #971Talk #StLouisMorningBrief #BentleyAndMasonsLaw #GovKehoe #SecondAmendment #GunRights #ProtectOurKids #FamilyValues #StLouis #MetroEast #BoysAndGirlsClub #CardinalsBaseball #JordanWalker #ConservativeTalk

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

This Day in Legal History: The Watergate BurglaryOn this day in 1972, at roughly 2:30 in the morning, a security guard at the Watergate office complex on Virginia Avenue in Washington named Frank Wills noticed that the latches on a stairwell door had been taped over and called the District police. The police arrested five men inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee on the sixth floor: James McCord, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis. McCord was the security coordinator for the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Two days later, the FBI traced a $25,000 cashier's check found in Barker's bank account to the Committee to Re-Elect's finance chairman. The burglary itself was a third-rate one — bad lockpicking, surveillance gear that did not work, men carrying address books that linked them to the White House — but the legal consequences took two years to play out and rewrote large parts of American constitutional law in the process.The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Sam Ervin of North Carolina, conducted public hearings in the summer of 1973 that produced the disclosure of the White House taping system. The Saturday Night Massacre in October 1973 — Nixon's firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus — produced the legal scholarship that became the modern law of presidential removal and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's independent-counsel framework. United States v. Nixon in July 1974 produced the doctrine that executive privilege is qualified rather than absolute and must yield to a demonstrated need in a criminal proceeding, a holding that is still the foundational separation-of-powers case the Court returns to whenever an administration claims that internal deliberations cannot be subpoenaed.The articles of impeachment voted by the House Judiciary Committee in late July 1974 produced the modern template for impeachment-as-constitutional-remedy that has been deployed four times since. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. The constitutional residue of what began with five men and a roll of tape in a Watergate stairwell is in the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Inspector General Act, the Presidential Records Act, the post-Saturday-Night-Massacre statute book that defines what limits an administration faces when it tries to use the criminal-justice system politically. Fifty-four years on, the question of how much of that residue has held up is, as the saying goes, the question.U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Tuesday denied former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan's post-trial motion to vacate her December 2025 conviction for felony obstruction of a federal proceeding. Dugan had been charged after she let Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had appeared in her courtroom in April 2025 on a state misdemeanor, and his attorney leave through a side door of her courtroom after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had assembled in the public hallway to arrest him on a federal civil immigration warrant. A jury found Dugan guilty of obstruction and acquitted her of the lesser concealing-an-individual count.Her post-trial motion pressed two principal arguments. The first was that the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Edwards — which addressed the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 obstruction as applied to interference with administrative agency proceedings — applies to ICE warrant service and so the trial court should have given a narrower jury instruction. The second was that her conduct was protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity for acts taken on the bench. Judge Adelman rejected both. On Edwards, the court held that the Fourth Circuit's reasoning addresses a different statutory provision and a different agency context, and that Dugan's case is governed by Seventh Circuit precedent on the obstruction statute she was convicted under.On judicial immunity, the court held that the doctrine is a civil shield against private damages liability and does not bar federal criminal prosecution for affirmative conduct in aid of evading federal law-enforcement officers. Dugan's team has announced that the case will go to the Seventh Circuit. Sentencing is now back on the calendar. The appellate question that will dominate the briefing is the one Judge Adelman teed up: whether a state judge taking administrative action in the courthouse — guiding a litigant to a back exit — falls inside or outside the federal obstruction statute's reach when the action is calculated to defeat federal law-enforcement service. That issue has not been squarely decided in the Seventh Circuit. The case is going to be the vehicle.Ex-Judge Loses Bid To Undo ICE Obstruction Conviction | Law360A Maryland federal judge on Tuesday denied SCOTUSblog co-founder Thomas C. Goldstein's post-trial motion for acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial on the twelve counts on which a jury had convicted him in February — tax evasion, assisting in the preparation of false returns, willful failure to pay over employment taxes, and false statements to mortgage lenders. The case is one of the more striking falls in modern Supreme Court practice. Goldstein had argued for years before the Court and was, for two decades, one of the most visible private SCOTUS practitioners in the country, with SCOTUSblog itself becoming the standard public-facing reference for Supreme Court news.The criminal case grew out of his recreational high-stakes poker, which prosecutors used to build out a pattern of unreported gambling income, gambling debts paid out of law-firm funds, and gambling losses claimed as business expenses. The post-trial motion principally argued that the trial court's jury instructions on willfulness improperly conflated the negligence standard with the higher mens rea Cheek v. United States requires in federal tax-evasion prosecutions, and that the court had wrongly excluded evidence going to Goldstein's claimed reliance on his accountants' advice. The court rejected both. On the willfulness instruction, the court found the instruction tracked the Fourth Circuit's pattern instruction on Cheek and made clear to the jury that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law was a defense. On the accountant-reliance evidence, the court held that the offer of proof was insufficient to establish that Goldstein had actually relied on professional advice in the particular omissions the indictment turned on, as opposed to relying on his own judgment. Sentencing is now the next event.The federal sentencing guidelines on the tax counts alone, with the loss amount the jury found, point to a substantial custodial term. Watch for an appeal that focuses on the willfulness instruction; that is the cleanest reversible-error vehicle in the record.SCOTUSblog Founder Goldstein Denied Acquittal Or Retrial | Law360A Delaware federal judge on Tuesday denied Guardant Health's post-trial motion to vacate, reduce, or stay enforcement of the $83.4 million jury verdict TwinStrand Biosciences won against it in late 2023 for willful infringement of diagnostic-sequencing patents covering duplex-sequencing technology used in liquid-biopsy cancer-screening assays. The court also declined to enhance the award under 35 U.S.C. § 284, even though the jury had found willfulness, reasoning that the multi-factor Read v. Portec analysis the Federal Circuit has refined in Halo Electronics and its progeny cut both ways here: Guardant's pre-suit notice and continued use of the accused technology supported some enhancement, but its defenses on infringement and validity, while ultimately rejected, were not objectively reckless.The decision is notable for two doctrinal reasons. First, it reflects how district courts are continuing to deploy Halo's discretion-based framework in the post-pandemic-era diagnostic-patent landscape, where the gap between objectively defensible defenses and reckless infringement is being drawn case by case in a way that is making certworthy issues for the Federal Circuit and, eventually, the Supreme Court. Second, it underscores the $83.4 million is significant but not transformative: the broader competitive question in the diagnostic-sequencing space is whether Guardant can design around the asserted claims fast enough to keep its cancer-screening assays on the market without paying a recurring royalty to TwinStrand. Guardant has indicated it will appeal to the Federal Circuit. Both the underlying infringement findings and the no-enhancement ruling are likely to be appealed in parallel — Guardant on infringement and validity, TwinStrand on the refusal to enhance. The verdict stands for now.Del. Judge Upholds $83.4M Patent Verdict Against Guardant | Law360My Bloomberg Tax column this week argues that the IRS's disclosure of taxpayer address information to ICE should be understood less as a narrow immigration-enforcement controversy and more as a tax-data governance failure.I argue that Section 6103 does not make IRS data impossible to share, but it does make confidentiality the default and disclosure the exception. That distinction matters because a statutory exception should not become a bulk-transfer mechanism whenever another agency wants access to IRS records. The IRS holds unusually sensitive information because taxpayers are legally compelled to provide it, so any interagency disclosure should require necessity, precision, security, and auditability on a record-by-record basis.The TIGTA report is troubling because the IRS apparently built an automated matching process that was vulnerable to bad ICE inputs, inconsistent formatting, malformed records, and weak matching rules. ICE also had unresolved safeguard issues and missed corrective-action deadlines before the data transfer. In my view, that combination means the problem was not simply that data moved; it was that protected taxpayer information moved through a process that treated matching quality and backend security as implementation details rather than core privacy protections.The broader point is that bad data inputs are not just a programmer's inconvenience. If the IRS relies on another agency's messy file to decide whether protected tax information can be disclosed, the quality of that file becomes part of the taxpayer-confidentiality analysis. Loose input standards and crude matching rules effectively expand the statutory exception beyond what Congress authorized.My proposed fix is straightforward: before the IRS discloses taxpayer information, requesting agencies should have to provide clean, structured, validated data; legally certify the need for each record; meet defined match-confidence thresholds; submit ambiguous cases for manual review; and accept strict limits on use, retention, and auditing. The column's central line is that Section 6103 exceptions should operate like locked doors, not loading docks.IRS Sharing Taxpayer Info With ICE Is a Data Governance Issue 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: 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: Madison Introduces the Bill of RightsOn this day in 1789, James Madison rose from his seat in New York's Federal Hall — then the temporary capital of the new federal government — and gave the speech in which he introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights. Madison had been, until quite recently, a skeptic of attaching a bill of rights to the federal Constitution: he had argued at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist that the structure of enumerated and separated powers was a better protection of liberty than a “parchment barrier” of textual rights, and he worried that any enumeration would be read to imply that whatever was not enumerated was not protected. What changed his mind was politics. The Antifederalist opposition in several states had made ratification conditional on amendments protecting individual rights, and Madison — by then a member of the First Congress — concluded that introducing such amendments himself was the surest way to defuse a broader constitutional convention movement that might unravel the work of 1787. The list he proposed on June 8 was longer and somewhat different from what eventually became the Bill of Rights; the House debated it through the summer, passed seventeen amendments in August, the Senate reduced them to twelve in September, and ten of those — the ones we now call Amendments I through X — were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. June 8 is the date a reluctant convert stood up and made the case that has carried American constitutional law ever since: the proposition that the government's structural restraint is necessary but not sufficient, and that the rights of speech, conscience, due process, and the rest deserve to be written down where everyone can read them.Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Friday vacated four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had, since late last year, frozen work permits, green-card adjudications, naturalization, and asylum claims for nationals of roughly 39 countries on the second Trump administration's travel ban list. The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132, was brought by a coalition of immigrant-service organizations and labor unions. Judge McConnell held that all four policies — a “Benefits Hold” freezing affirmative benefits for travel-ban country nationals, a Global Asylum Hold halting asylum processing across the board regardless of country of origin, a Comprehensive Re-Review Policy requiring USCIS to re-examine previously approved benefits, and a separate adjudicator-instruction policy treating travel-ban country origin as a negative factor — are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal hook is familiar APA territory: the agency, McConnell concluded, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the freezes and failed to account for the substantial reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of pending applicants. What makes this ruling stand out is the remedy. Other district courts that had blocked these policies in the last six months issued preliminary injunctions limited to named plaintiffs; McConnell vacated the policies themselves, which under standard APA practice means they cease to operate nationwide. That puts USCIS in the position of either rescinding the policies, going back to the drawing board with proper rulemaking, or appealing to the First Circuit and trying to get the vacatur stayed. Expect movement on all three fronts this week.US Judge Strikes Down Trump Policies Targeting Immigrants From 39 Countries | US NewsU.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia entered a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from disbursing any money while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. The fund — created by executive order earlier this year and funded out of a settlement the administration brokered in the Trump-IRS litigation we covered in early June — was meant to compensate people the administration described as victims of the Biden Justice Department's “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, with the first contemplated payments going to defendants and witnesses from the January 6 prosecutions. Plaintiffs include former DOJ attorney Andrew Floyd and other former federal prosecutors who argue, in essence, that the fund is an unauthorized expenditure of public money: Congress never appropriated it, the settlement that supposedly funds it is itself under judicial review for whether the United States was actually adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard. Judge Brinkema's order, narrowly drawn to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed,” set a June 12 hearing on whether the freeze should be extended into a preliminary injunction. By the end of last week the situation had escalated further: on June 5 the Justice Department told two federal judges, in writing, that it would stop work on the fund altogether and that the lawsuits challenging it are now moot. That representation will be tested at this Friday's hearing, because the plaintiffs are not satisfied with a unilateral DOJ promise and want a binding court order before they go away. Watch for what Brinkema does with that disagreement on Friday.Justice Department says it will stop work on $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after judge's ruling | CBS NewsA divided Seventh Circuit panel on Friday upheld Indiana's law restricting who may attend an execution at the Indiana State Prison, holding that the First Amendment does not give reporters a right of access to be present at the execution itself. Judge Michael Scudder wrote the 2-1 majority. The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Gannett, WISH-TV, and TEGNA, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — had argued that the long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing a First Amendment right of press and public access to criminal proceedings, from Richmond Newspapers forward, extends to the carrying out of capital sentences, particularly given Indiana's recent resumption of executions after a long pause and a 2024 statute that omitted journalists from the list of permitted witnesses. The panel disagreed. The majority emphasized that Indiana's witness list — the warden, execution staff, the prison physician, a chaplain, the prisoner's spiritual adviser, up to eight family members of the victim, and up to five unspecified additional witnesses — leaves journalists free to interview those who did attend, report on every other aspect of the proceeding, and comment on the state's choice to impose or carry out the sentence, and that there is no constitutional difference between watching the execution and reporting on it secondhand. The opinion's most striking passage, candidly weighed against the press claim: allowing “uninvited strangers with no immediate connection to the underlying crime” to watch a prisoner die “risks offending the dignity of their final moments.” The dissent argued the press's structural role in informing public deliberation over the death penalty depends on first-hand observation. The split sets up a possible petition for rehearing en banc and, in the longer run, a circuit-split-ready vehicle if other circuits go the other way.7th Circ. Says Ind. Can Bar Press From Attending Executions | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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.

This Day in Legal History: The First Act of CongressOn this day in 1789, President George Washington signed the first statute ever enacted by Congress under the new Constitution — “An Act to Regulate the Time and Manner of Administering Certain Oaths,” codified at 1 Stat. 23. The substance was modest: the law prescribed the form of the oath that members of Congress, federal judges, and executive officers were to take to support the Constitution, and gave the states a window in which to swear in their own officials. But the symbolism was enormous. It was the first time the new federal government did the thing governments actually do, which is to pass a law and require people to obey it, and the choice of subject was telling.Before Congress regulated commerce, levied taxes, or built courts, it bound its own officers to the Constitution by oath. The oath clauses in Article II and Article VI have been doing quiet doctrinal work ever since: they ground the Supremacy Clause, they undergird Marbury's claim that judges are bound to follow the Constitution as supreme law, and they sit at the center of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 disqualification debate that the Supreme Court took up in Trump v. Anderson just two years ago. The Oath Act of 1789 is not the kind of statute that gets quoted on bar exams, but it is the original instance of Congress speaking in legal form, and everything the federal government has done since rests on top of it.Uber went after one of its own bellwether plaintiffs Friday in the sprawling multidistrict litigation over alleged passenger sexual assaults, asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros in the Northern District of California to impose sanctions on plaintiff B.L. and her counsel at Wagstaff Law Firm for what Uber called “pervasive bad faith” in discovery.The headline accusation, made by Kirkland & Ellis's Michael Vives for Uber, is that B.L.'s privilege log cites cases that don't exist — what Vives suggested may be “hallucinated case law” generated by an AI tool — and Vives floated that as an independent basis for sanctions on top of the alleged document withholding, redactions, and undisclosed witnesses Uber catalogued in its April motion.he legal vehicle here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which gives a federal court a tiered menu of sanctions for discovery misconduct — fees and costs at the low end, adverse-inference instructions and claim preclusion at the high end — and Uber is asking the court to throw B.L.'s case out of the next bellwether wave entirely. Judge Cisneros noticed during the hearing that what struck her about the briefing was the pattern, not any single incident; she pointed to one example where the plaintiff identified a person as a “friend” and only later produced a fuller set of text messages showing the person was actually a therapist.The judge ordered the plaintiff to file a sur-reply by Thursday before ruling, which means a sanctions order is now teed up. The case sits within In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) before Judge Charles R. Breyer, and any sanctions ruling will set the tone for how the rest of the bellwether pool conducts discovery. If the hallucinated-caselaw piece sticks, this also becomes one of the first real Rule 11 / Rule 37 hybrid sanctions vehicles for generative AI misuse in the MDL context — and the bar will be reading it closely.‘Pervasive Bad Faith': Uber Targets Sex Assault MDL Plaintiff | Law360The Seventh Circuit on Friday told the Northern District of Illinois that the now-standard practice of serving Chinese e-commerce defendants by email in “Schedule A” trademark cases doesn't fly under the Hague Service Convention — at least not when the convention applies, which is a question the district court has to actually answer first. The dispute came up in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., No. 25-2205, where the hat-maker Kangol sued more than twenty Chinese vendors for trademark infringement and identified them on a sealed “Schedule A” exhibit attached to the complaint — the same procedural pattern that drives the enormous Schedule A docket in Chicago's federal court.Kangol got a default judgment after serving the defendants by email, but one defendant, Hangzhou Chuanyue, appeared and moved to vacate, arguing that the Hague Convention prohibits email service in China and that the convention applies because Hangzhou's address is discoverable. The legal hook is Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which permits service “by postal channels” only when the destination state has not objected — and China has affirmatively objected to Article 10(a), full stop.The Seventh Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, held that whether or not email counts as a “postal channel,” Article 10(a) is unavailable in China, so email service in this case was improper if the convention applied at all. The panel — Judges Thomas Kirsch, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Doris Pryor — reversed the denial of Hangzhou's motion to vacate and sent the case back for the threshold question the district court skipped: did Kangol make reasonably diligent efforts to find Hangzhou's address, which would have triggered the convention.The practical fallout will reach hundreds, possibly thousands, of pending Schedule A cases in Chicago that rely on email service as a matter of course, and plaintiff firms in this space will be scrambling to redo their service strategy.7th Circ. Revives Chinese IP Defendants' Email Service Case | Law360The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Thursday transferred Randall King's proposed class action — the vehicle for a proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement with Monsanto — into the Northern District of California MDL before Judge Vince Chhabria, despite vehement objections from absent class members who want the case to stay in Missouri state court.The case-within-a-case is unusual: the King action was filed and preliminarily settled in Missouri state court, then a group of objectors (represented by Keller Postman) removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the JPML then tagged it for transfer to the consolidated Roundup MDL. The legal hook here is 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML's transfer authority — paired with CAFA's removal rules, which the settling plaintiffs argue were misused because the objectors aren't “defendants” within the meaning of § 1453 and so cannot remove.The objectors counter that the $7.25 billion deal “launders a liability-management scheme through the courts” by funneling claims of Roundup cancer victims through a Missouri state-court class that an MDL judge would never approve, and they want federal-court scrutiny under Rule 23 and the standards Judge Chhabria has spent years developing in the Roundup litigation. Monsanto, for its part, is on the objectors' side of the venue question — at least tactically — telling Law360 that the case should go back to Missouri state court and it will move to oppose the transfer order.The whole fight is also tied up with the Supreme Court's pending decision in a separate Monsanto case that will determine whether the deal survives at all, because the proposed $7.25 billion is structured around what the Court does there. Whichever way this remand/transfer fight comes out, it is going to be cited in every future class-settlement-jurisdiction tug-of-war for the rest of the decade.$7.25B Roundup Deal Sent To Calif. MDL | Law360A U.S. district judge in Florida said Saturday she will take a closer look at the settlement the Trump administration has reached with itself — or more precisely, with President Trump in his personal capacity — over a long-running IRS lawsuit, scheduling further proceedings to examine whether the deal can stand.The procedural posture is what makes this one interesting: the case involves a federal agency under the President's control settling claims with the President personally, which raises immediate questions about whether anyone is actually adverse to anyone, and whether the resulting consent decree or stipulation can carry the legal weight a normal settlement does. The legal mechanism the judge appears to be invoking is the federal court's inherent supervisory authority over consent decrees and settlements involving the federal government, an authority that runs through cases like Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland and that the Tunney Act formalizes for antitrust settlements — though here there is no Tunney Act, just the general principle that a federal court doesn't have to rubber-stamp a settlement when there are serious questions about whether the United States was actually represented in the negotiation.The hearing on the issue was set for late May in Miami, with the judge reportedly skeptical that the deal can be approved without further factual development. The political stakes are obvious, but the legal stakes are arguably bigger: if the court can refuse to approve the settlement on the ground that the executive branch was not adverse to itself in any meaningful way, it would create a precedent that constrains every future administration's ability to make its own personal litigation go away through agency action. Expect this one to generate appellate motion practice within weeks.US judge orders review of Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement | Reuters 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

fWotD Episode 3307: Menora v. Illinois High School Association Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Monday, 25 May 2026, is Menora v. Illinois High School Association.Menora v. Illinois High School Association, 683 F.2d 1030 (7th Cir. 1982), is a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit centered on two Jewish schools seeking to play in an interscholastic basketball tournament run by the Illinois High School Association (IHSA). The IHSA would not let the schools compete unless their students removed their religious head-coverings, called kippot (sg. kippah). The kippot violated a rule against players wearing headgear on the court, according to the IHSA, but the students refused to play without them. They, along with their parents and schools, sued the IHSA in 1981, arguing that their First Amendment right of freedom of religion had been violated. The IHSA responded that the safety concern was reasonable because a kippah could fall off during play, causing injury.The Supreme Court's ruling in Sherbert v. Verner (1963) sets out a two-part test of government restrictions on religious freedom, known as the Sherbert test. Under the test, the restriction has to be justified by a compelling interest that outweighs the loss of religious freedom, and it has to preserve religious freedom as much as possible. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an injunction, allowing the students to play with kippot on while the case was ongoing. Months later, the district court issued its judgment in favor of the schools, citing the Sherbert test. Judge Milton Shadur found that the IHSA did not have a compelling interest because the IHSA could not provide any evidence that kippot had ever caused an injury.The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's ruling, forgoing the Sherbert test in favor of the false conflict doctrine – under this approach, the court rigorously defines the interests of the two parties, and in doing so, may find that little to no conflict actually exists between them. The court reasoned that if the schools could design a head-covering that met the IHSA's safety concerns, which the court felt were reasonable, the conflict would be resolved. The dissent argued that the district court had correctly interpreted Sherbert and that the ruling should not have put the burden of resolving the conflict on the schools. A settlement was reached in June 1983, allowing kippot to be worn when secured with contour clips. Legal scholars criticized the Seventh Circuit's false conflict approach as unsupported by precedent, writing that if the Sherbert test were properly applied, the court would have put the burden on the IHSA to uphold safety without infringing on religious freedom, not the schools. American Jewish communities largely took it as a victory that the students were allowed to play with kippot on. The Supreme Court's later ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) limited the reach of the Sherbert test, possibly making it inapplicable to cases like Menora.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:17 UTC on Monday, 25 May 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Menora v. Illinois High School Association on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Bluesky at @wikioftheday.com.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Aria.

Joy Bertrand attended law school at Indiana University-Bloomington and the University of Arizona. She received her Juris Doctorate from Indiana University-Bloomington in 1996. While on assignment with the US Attorney's Office, Joy tried and won four federal jury trials and successfully litigated several Seventh Circuit appeals, including a Solicitor General appeal. You've been a faculty member for Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College, which is about as elite and high-pressure as it gets. What did you witness happening to the best lawyers in the country over time that made you realize this was a health crisis, not just occupational stress? You describe hostility not as something that happens to us, but as a mindset — even a habit, no different than chronic complaining. Can you further explain that? What happens physiologically when someone spends years living in a state of constant conflict and high alert? You talk about an emotional scale, and you make the point that people don't have to leap from hostility all the way to gratitude to see real health benefits — that massive gains happen just by moving toward the middle. What does that middle ground look like, and how do people start finding it in the middle of a brutal workday? What does it actually look like to stop letting that pressure dismantle your health, your sleep, and your relationships — without losing your edge? Joy Bertrand Joy Bertrand attended law school at Indiana University-Bloomington and the University of Arizona. She received her Juris Doctorate from Indiana University-Bloomington in 1996. While on assignment with the US Attorney's Office, Joy tried and won four federal jury trials and successfully litigated several Seventh Circuit appeals, including a Solicitor General appeal. In 2005, Joy entered private practice, emphasizing federal litigation. Her criminal practice has handled all manner of cases, from disorderly conduct and littering to white collar fraud and homicide. Her current practice interests include federal trial consulting, trial lawyer coaching, teaching trial advocacy, the medical and legal issues presented by pregnant women in custody, and advocating for the abolition of qualified of immunity. In October 2011, Joy graduated from the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College in Dubois, Wyoming. She completed the Trial Lawyers College's faculty training in May 2014 and joined the TLC faculty shortly thereafter. Joy is the host of the Athena in the Well podcast and author of the upcoming book, "How to Fight Giants and Win: the Secret Lives of Women Trial Lawyers."  Joy is also a speaker and teacher. Excellent Executive Coaching Podcast If you have enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on iTunes. We would love for you to leave a review. The EEC podcasts are sponsored by MKB Excellent Executive Coaching, which helps you get from where you are to where you want to be with customized leadership and coaching development programs. MKB Excellent Executive Coaching offers leadership development programs to generate action, learning, and change that is aligned with your authentic self and values. Transform your dreams into reality and invest in yourself by scheduling a discovery session with Dr. Katrina Burrus, MCC, to reach your goals. Your host is Dr. Katrina Burrus, MCC, founder and general manager of Excellent Executive Coaching, a company that specializes in leadership development.

In this episode, we kick things off by examining a landmark Supreme Court decision that fundamentally reshapes liability for the freight brokerage industry. The Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act includes freight brokers, settling conflicting circuit court cases and clearing the way for negligent-hiring claims in state court. The decision in Montgomery versus Caribe Transport II allows C.H. Robinson to return as a defendant when the case is remanded to the Seventh Circuit. Next, we explore the ocean freight sector where carriers are tightening trans-Pacific eastbound capacity by blanking sailings around China's May Day holiday, creating the firmest supply-demand environment of the year. Meanwhile, Houston's containerized cargo volumes are surging as West Coast ports see year-over-year declines, driven by ship canal improvements that now allow larger and heavier vessels to access the Gulf Coast port. Executives expect carriers to hold mid-May general rate increases as tighter vessel supply supports higher pricing heading into summer shipping season. Finally, we cover a massive infrastructure investment to optimize distribution across the Southwest as Dollar Tree opens a one million-square-foot distribution center in Litchfield Park, Arizona. The climate-controlled facility, one of Dollar Tree's largest, will service about seven hundred stores across five states and help move product closer to stores for faster customer delivery. The value retailer now operates nineteen distribution centers supporting over nine thousand stores across North America. Follow the FreightWaves NOW Podcast Other FreightWaves Shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we kick things off by examining a landmark Supreme Court decision that fundamentally reshapes liability for the freight brokerage industry. The Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act includes freight brokers, settling conflicting circuit court cases and clearing the way for negligent-hiring claims in state court. The decision in Montgomery versus Caribe Transport II allows C.H. Robinson to return as a defendant when the case is remanded to the Seventh Circuit. Next, we explore the ocean freight sector where carriers are tightening trans-Pacific eastbound capacity by blanking sailings around China's May Day holiday, creating the firmest supply-demand environment of the year. Meanwhile, Houston's containerized cargo volumes are surging as West Coast ports see year-over-year declines, driven by ship canal improvements that now allow larger and heavier vessels to access the Gulf Coast port. Executives expect carriers to hold mid-May general rate increases as tighter vessel supply supports higher pricing heading into summer shipping season. Finally, we cover a massive infrastructure investment to optimize distribution across the Southwest as Dollar Tree opens a one million-square-foot distribution center in Litchfield Park, Arizona. The climate-controlled facility, one of Dollar Tree's largest, will service about seven hundred stores across five states and help move product closer to stores for faster customer delivery. The value retailer now operates nineteen distribution centers supporting over nine thousand stores across North America. Follow the FreightWaves NOW Podcast Other FreightWaves Shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

DEA rescthedules state-legal medical marijuana, but recreational cannabis stays on Schedule III (and 280E issues continue for those businesses), Seventh Circuit finds claim of right can be used to exclude income from taxation and more.

Human Rights: Does a case against author Neil Gaiman for violating the sex trafficking laws belong in New Zealand? - Argued: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 15:49:11 EDT

Privacy: Does the government need a warrant to search electronic devices at the border? - Argued: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 15:46:2 EDT

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

In this episode, Jordan breaks down a Fifth Circuit ruling that requires apportionment of damages in multi-secret cases, and the Seventh Circuit's strict approach to trade secret identification at the summary judgment stage. 

Torts: What must flight attendants show to sustain a claim that the uniforms that American Airlines required them to wear were toxic? - Argued: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:32:34 EDT

Civil Rights: May health insurance plans categorically decline coverage for "gender affirming care" for minors? - Argued: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:29:6 EDT

Administrative Law: May the President bar federal grant recipients from having Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs? - Argued: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:30:26 EDT

Civil Procedure: Must suits against oil companies for contributing to climate change proceed in federal court? - Argued: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 17:49:59 EDT

Civil Procedure: Can Clearview AI settle the claims that it unlawfully collected people's biometric data with a profit sharing agreement that does not involve an injunction against using that data? - Argued: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 16:52:24 EDT

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections involved whether a candidate for federal office has standing to challenge an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified as of election day and received within two weeks of the election.Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture[WEF]/[CB] agenda is now coming true, it is no longer a conspiracy, they are controlling the cars in Germany remotely. Kamal Harris climate warrior buys house on the ocean.Remove the illegals and the cost for everything goes down. People are now seeing the truth about sound money compared to fiat. Trump tariffs system is taking off. The [DS] is now pushing their war to the next level. They know that soon the people of this country will see the crimes they have committed against the people and to this country. They are fighting back and they are testing Trump to see what he will do. At the same time Trump is testing them, watch and observing their movements. When the time is right the Insurrection Act will be invoked nationwide, but now he might test it in a local area. Trump has given the warning to the insurrectionists.   Economy https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/2011712915963859403?s=20  Toyota used remote access to turn off the pre heating, which is used to heat up the cars before driving. You would turn it on, 10 minutes before driving somewhere, so your car is warm and de-iced already.   Toyota spokesman Ralph Müller: “The pre-air conditioning is a free function of the MyToyota app or Lexus Link Plus App. This function is still available for all pure electric vehicles and plug-in vehicles. For vehicles with conventional drive, this only works when the combustion engine is running. The legislator considers this an unnecessary running of the engine or an avoidable exhaust gas pollution, which is prohibited. This is not known to many users. In Europe, there is no uniform legal situation, about which we have informed with a corresponding note in the app. In order to protect the vehicle user from fines, we have deactivated the function on these vehicles.” Climate Change Warrior Kamala Harris Buys New Mansion Near The Ocean in Malibu  Kamala Harris just bought a new $8 million mansion in Malibu near the beach. She must be deeply concerned about climate change. Have you noticed this pattern? Democrat elites, the people most likely to lecture others about climate change and to claim that it's an existential threat to humanity and the planet, sure do love to buy homes on the coast. Just look at Obama. Where are his homes? Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii. Does that sound like a man who is worried about climate change? The New York Post reports: Kamala Harris upgrades LA real estate portfolio with $8M mega mansion in Malibu's celeb-packed Pt. Dume Source: thegatewaypundit.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2011568614898614645?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2011548021511897343?s=20 https://twitter.com/thencamekevin/status/2011562742029959291?s=20  face value. Four of these quarters might have the face value of $1.00 but, THEIR ACTUAL VALUE IS $64! The stackers were right. . . Political/Rights https://twitter.com/VinceDaoTV/status/2011540393947775098?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical    https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2011598672929440042?s=20 Vice President Vance Casts Tie-Breaking Vote To Kill Venezuela War Powers Resolution in the Senate Two Republicans who previously voted to advance the bill flipped after pressure from Trump Vice President JD Vance had to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate on Wednesday night to kill a Venezuela War Powers Resolution that sought to prevent another US attack on the country without congressional authorization. The Senate was deadlocked at 50-50 on a point of order vote to strip the War Powers Resolution of its privileged status to block a final vote. President Trump and his top officials put significant pressure on five Republicans who voted to advance the legislation last week, and two of the GOP senators — Josh Hawley (MO) and Todd Young (IN) — flipped and voted against the bill. Source: news.antiwar.com https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem/status/2011803374807547909?s=20   President Trump's established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean. Through close coordination with our colleagues in the Departments of War, State, and Justice, our heroic Coast Guard men and women once again ensured a flawlessly executed operation, in accordance with international law. As we've now demonstrated through multiple boardings, there is no outrunning or escaping American justice — period. Our resolve is unshakeable and our mission coordination has never been better. America’s Coast Guard remains Always Ready to apply the full force of its unique authorities and specialized capabilities against this threat anywhere, anytime.    War/Peace https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2011817852290895915?s=20  https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2011576169918054597?s=20 https://twitter.com/ABC/status/2011788458042540303?s=20 Zelensky to declare state of emergency after strikes cripple power grid    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced plans to declare a state of emergency in the energy sector. This measure aims to address disrupted power supplies following sustained Russian attacks on the country’s infrastructure. Source: .independent.co.uk  https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2011757910041452892?s=20 President Trump Identifies the Roadblock to a Ceasefire Between Ukraine and Russia In an interview with Reuters, President Trump was asked why the Russia/Ukraine negotiations appear to have stalled.  President Trump responded with one word, “Zelenskyy.” WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump told Reuters that Ukraine – not Russia – is holding up a potential peace deal, rhetoric that stands in marked contrast to that of European allies, who have consistently argued Moscow has little interest in ending its war in Ukraine. In an exclusive interview in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to wrap up his nearly four-year-old invasion of Ukraine. Zelenskiy, the U.S. president said, was more reticent. “I think he's ready to make a deal,” Trump said of the Russian president. “I think Ukraine is less ready to make a deal.” Asked why U.S.-led negotiations had not yet resolved Europe's largest land conflict since World War Two, Trump responded: “Zelenskiy.”   Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  https://twitter.com/zeroDEIUSA/status/2011211989847326747?s=20  this point, dictated that Canada, Denmark, and NATO generally are allowed to sit on their collective asses vis a'vis Defense. Poland and Hungary are the exceptions since they rarely conform to WEF dictums. But we also know something else: This administration doesn't see the world and this hemisphere through a WEF lens. Those differences in world view, opinion, policy, and sense of urgency between America and our allies are bubbling up publicly. I don't think the friction is or will be inconsequential. In fact, I would posit that the hairline cracks we hear about, in terms of NATO cooperation and membership, will inevitably become full fledged fissures. There are any number of pressure points between this administration and our ANO's (allies in name only) most notably the UK. Saber rattling has become the norm in communiques from Germany, the UK, and the EU. Calls for a “European only” Army and Navy have come from the upper and middle echelons of the military in several NATO member nations in Europe. The Europeans are shocked and outraged by our statements and concerns about Greenland. Now I could be wrong; but it seems that NATO's members are viewing our actions in Venezuela as well as Trump's position that Ukraine is largely a Euro problem, and his vision that the “Donroe” doctrine should be a precursor to a solid military defense strategy as well as a strategic trading block composed by countries in the Western Hemisphere as an emerging existential threat. And indeed it is. We have all seen examples that, by now prove conclusively, that Trump and his advisers are some of the best “tea leaf” readers ever. I honestly think this administration sees the rapid cultural, political, and social deterioration in Europe (Germany, Austria, France, the UK) and other Western nations (Australia and NZ) as harbingers and not one off's. And as such, I believe Trump and his team have concluded that these EU countries have reached a point of no return in every measure that matters. I believe the head butting will, by the end of Trump's term, deteriorate or accelerate to locking horns with former allies and our eventual departure from them as a bloc in favor of the Western Hemisphere as a replacement block. The “Donroe” doctrine says as much. I believe Trump would prefer to capitalize on Geography. That is to say a land mass that stretches from the Arctic circle to the Antarctic circle with North America and South America in between. I believe he sees that as something America can control, protect, and develop. How this will play out, I'm not sure. But I believe he is quietly preparing an exit ramp for our departure from NATO per se. It will be interesting. He will leave office and hand this massive initiative to Vance and Rubio; confident in their judgment and ability to execute. Medical/False Flags President Trump Announces “The Great Healthcare Plan” President Donald J. Trump's Great Healthcare Plan is a broad healthcare initiative that will slash prescription drug prices, reduce insurance premiums, hold big insurance companies accountable, and maximize price transparency in the American healthcare system. This plan will deliver money directly to the American people, not insurance companies, big pharma and special interest groups—putting patients over industry leaders' profits, just as he promised. The Great Healthcare Plan also builds on the successes of his first term by promoting competition, eliminating wasteful spending, and putting consumers back in control. [The Great Healthcare Plan] Source: theconservativetreehouse.com [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/Patri0tContr0l/status/2011502712819761455?s=20 https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/2011821087911231924?s=20 https://twitter.com/philthatremains/status/2011763419293368576?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2011705622249816580?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2011695320112251315?s=20     https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2011634818375958782?s=20     https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/2011644187708371237?s=20 https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2011632198000976086?s=20    into a parked car. The subject then fled on foot. The law enforcement officer caught up to the subject on foot and attempted to apprehend him when the subject began to resist and violently assault the officer. While the subject and law enforcement were in a struggle on the ground, two subjects came out of a nearby apartment and also attacked the law enforcement officer with a snow shovel and broom handle. As the officer was being ambushed and attacked by the two individuals, the original subject got loose and began striking the officer with a shovel or broom stick. Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life. The initial subject was hit in the leg. All three subjects ran back into the apartment and barricaded themselves inside. The attacked officer and subject are both in the hospital. Both attackers are in custody. This attack on another brave member of law enforcement took place while Minnesota's top leaders, Governor Walz and Mayor Frey, are actively encouraging an organized resistance to ICE and federal law enforcement officers. Their hateful rhetoric and resistance against men and women who are simply trying to do their jobs must end. Federal law enforcement officers are facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them as they put their lives on the line to arrest criminals and lawbreakers. https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/2011711533014036932?s=20 Antifa are teaching illegals that they can attack federal law enforcement.    https://twitter.com/DAGToddBlanche/status/2011620198751597028?s=20  and Frey – I'm focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It's a promise. https://twitter.com/StandUpForElonn/status/2011591809114210333?s=20   TORCHED. For once, the IRS is being deployed FOR AMERICANS FIRST — not against working families. Follow the money. Audit everything. Prosecute whoever broke the law.    protection from the Fake News Media but, it will end, as we, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Joy Behar of The View: Trump Will Use ICE Protests in Minneapolis to Declare Martial Law and Cancel the Midterm Elections (VIDEO) This week on The View, Joy Behar suggested that she is worried that Trump is planning to use the ICE protests in Minneapolis and elsewhere to declare martial law and cancel the 2026 midterm elections. Think about what she is suggesting here. She is saying that Trump will override local jurisdictions, put the military in charge, and then cancel elections. It is pure BlueAnon lunacy. And remember that The View falls under the ABC ‘News' division. FOX News reports: Joy Behar claims Trump seeking to declare martial law to stop midterm elections amid ICE protests     ABC News should be held accountable for pushing this madness on the air. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2011606173993353376?s=20 https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2011613524251066484?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2011628944877883438?s=20   is EXTREMELY dangerous stuff. Not only is he lying about what's happening, but not once did he tell his constituents to stay out of the way of federal law enforcement officers. He is actively encouraging them to obstruct ICE agents, as a means to cover up the massive fraud and criminality in his state. This is 1860's type stuff we are dealing with here, and you can see it on Walz's face, especially at the end. He knows the severity of what he just did. The Dems are in open rebellion against the Trump administration, while harboring illegal aliens in their Unconstitutional “sanctuary cities”, which they use to steal elections. This is irregular warfare. Things are about to get real. We are witnessing something historic.   https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2011525886630379525?s=20 https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/2011802180710289546?s=20   President Trump's Plan   https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/2011799570041250146?s=20  This authority can be invoked unilaterally by the President without congressional approval, though it includes specific procedural requirements.  The Act has three main triggers for invocation: At a state’s request (§251): When a governor or state legislature requests federal aid to suppress an insurrection within the state.   To enforce federal authority (§252): When unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion make it impracticable to enforce U.S. laws through ordinary judicial processes.   To address domestic violence or rights deprivations (§253): When insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy hinders the execution of laws or deprives citizens of constitutional rights, and state authorities are unable, fail, or refuse to act. For the Minnesota scenario described in the post (involving federal agents and no mention of a state request), §§252 or 253 would likely apply, allowing action without state consent. Next Steps for InvocationIf President Trump decides to proceed, the process is straightforward but must follow statutory requirements. Here’s a step-by-step outline based on the law and historical precedents: Assess and Determine Applicability: The President (or advisors) evaluates whether the situation meets one of the Act’s criteria, such as rebellion against federal authority or obstructions to law enforcement. This is an internal executive decision, often informed by reports from agencies like DHS, DOJ, or DOD. No formal public step is required here, but it sets the legal justification.  Issue a Presidential Proclamation (§254): Before deploying forces, the President must publicly issue a proclamation ordering the “insurgents” or obstructors to disperse and return home peacefully within a specified time limit (e.g., hours or days). This serves as a formal warning and is a mandatory prerequisite under the law. The proclamation is typically published in the Federal Register and announced via White House channels.  Failure to issue this could make any deployment unlawful. Monitor Compliance and Issue an Executive Order for Deployment: If the proclamation is ignored, the President can issue an executive order authorizing the deployment of federal troops or federalizing the National Guard. This order specifies the scope, duration, and rules of engagement. Troops can then be mobilized to enforce laws, restore order, or protect federal operations (e.g., supporting ICE in this case). Deployment is not automatic upon invocation; it’s at the President’s discretion. Oversight and Termination: Once invoked, the deployment continues until the President determines the crisis is resolved. Congress can potentially override or limit it through legislation, but this is rare. The Act requires reporting to Congress “as soon as practicable” on the reasons and measures taken. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2011886917311414381?s=20 Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman (WY-At-Large) challenged former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Romano on whether any participants in the January 6th protest in 2021 had been convicted under the federal insurrection statute. It was a question that led Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-8) to attempt to interject, to no avail. https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/2011604461412663618?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2011604461412663618%7Ctwgr%5Ecfabd7c33610a57fe0964ce3add2ff2ab7586c34%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2026%2F01%2F15%2Fwatch-raskin-shut-down-after-hageman-exposes-insurrection-myth-at-new-j6-committee-n2198161 https://twitter.com/ChiefSund/status/2011625686289494153?s=20  the requests and denials GOP Rep. Neal Dunn Announces Retirement After Five Terms — Triggering Critical March 10 Special Election  Republican Congressman Neal Dunn (R-Fla.) has announced he will retire after five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, opting not to seek re-election in 2026. The Panama City physician-serving lawmaker said he wants to spend more time with his family, but his departure comes at a perilous moment for the GOP as Republicans cling to a razor-thin House majority. Dunn's decision to step away from the House after a decade of service leaves Florida's 2nd Congressional District wide open and adds to a growing list of incumbents abandoning their posts ahead of one of the most consequential midterm cycles in recent memory. https://twitter.com/DrNealDunnFL2/status/2011092421866930495?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2011092421866930495%7Ctwgr%5E90201f9195637f0f3c794268082281e562876921%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fgop-rep-neal-dunn-announces-retirement-after-five%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com UPDATE: Pam Bondi Reveals Classified Leaker Behind Trump's Venezuela Operation Was Pentagon IT Contractor   Pam Bondi revealed that the classified leaker was a Pentagon IT contractor who has been arrested and jailed for endangering U.S. military operations and national security. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has unmasked the traitor behind the illegal leak of classified information about President Trump's bold Venezuela operation. Pam Bondi revealed Wednesday night that the individual responsible for leaking classified information about President Trump's Venezuela operation was an IT contractor for the Department of War and he is now sitting in jail. The disclosure came during an explosive interview with Sean Hannity, where Bondi confirmed that the Trump DOJ and FBI are aggressively pursuing those who leak classified military intelligence and the media figures who obtain and publish it. Source: thegatewaypundit.com   https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2011673479813222821?s=20   https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/2011574493966188556?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2011860087313154089?s=20   https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2011565907110224263?s=20  “These two individuals have been particularly egregious in their contempt of the President and putting their personal views in front of their duty as judges to carry out the jobs that they hold.” UPDATE: Pam Bondi Says Minnesota Prosecutors Didn't Quit — “I FIRED THEM ALL” After Refusing to Cooperate with ICE and Demanding Taxpayer-Funded Paid “Vacation” Till April Pam Bondi appears on Fox News' Hannity announcing that Minnesota prosecutors who refused to cooperate with ICE were fired. The narrative pushed by the corporate media has officially collapsed. After early reports claimed that at least six prosecutors in the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney's Office had “resigned in protest” over the Justice Department's actions following the fatal shooting of ICE protester Renee Nicole Good, Attorney General Pam Bondi stepped in and set the record straight.  According to The New York Times, the group of ousted attorneys includes Joe Thompson (Former Acting U.S. Attorney) Harry Jacobs Melinda Williams Thomas Calhoun-Lopez Ruth Schneider Tom Hollenhurst Source: thegatewaypundit.com HUGE WIN FOR ELECTION INTEGRITY: Supreme Court Greenlights Lawsuits Against Late Mail-In Ballots — Opens Door to Nationwide Challenges to Democrat Schemes The Supreme Court handed a crushing blow to the radical left's ballot-harvesting machine on Wednesday. In a stunning 7-2 decision, the High Court ruled that Republican Congressman Mike Bost (R-IL) has the legal standing to challenge Illinois's unconstitutional law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. This ruling reverses the Seventh Circuit and sends the case back to the lower court—where Illinois' late-ballot scheme will now be evaluated on the merits This is the game-changer we have been waiting for. For years, Democrats and their media allies have relied on “late-arriving ballots” to shift the results of elections days or even weeks after the polls close. We all remember what happened in 2020. We remember the “pauses” and the late-night spikes. But now, the Supreme Court has finally opened the floodgates for Republicans to sue to stop it. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, made it clear: candidates have a “personal stake” in the rules governing their elections. This destroys the liberal argument that Republicans can't sue unless they can prove a specific fraudulent ballot cost them the race. The following states accept ballots that arrive late, as long as they have a valid postmark: Alaska California District of Columbia Illinois Maryland Massachusetts Mississippi Nevada New Jersey New York Oregon Texas (Note: Must be received by 5:00 PM the day after Election Day) Virginia Washington West Virginia Note on Territories: Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam also typically accept late-arriving ballots if postmarked by Election Day. Several states that previously accepted late-arriving ballots have recently passed laws requiring ballots to be in the hands of election officials by the time polls close on Election Day, regardless of when they were mailed. Kansas (Changed in 2024/2025) North Dakota (Changed in 2025) Ohio (Changed in 2025) Utah (Changed in 2025) In all other states (e.g., Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona), your ballot must be received by the county election office by the close of polls on Election Day. Source: thegatewaypundit.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Immigration: May a federal judge impose a settlement agreement barring ICE from conducting warrantless stops in Chicago? - Argued: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:10:47 EDT

Have you ever thought about writing the perfect legal brief? Guest David N. Greenwald has, so much so that the retired Cravath, Swaine & Moore partner wrote a book on the subject: Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing. The book is the culmination of a 30-year legal career, beginning with a clerkship and the lessons learned under the guidance of the Hon. Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Reading, digesting, and understanding everything related to each brief proved to be the foundation of good legal writing, Greenwald says. Throughout his career, Greenwald intentionally honed his skills, from writing briefs to eventually, as a partner, editing them. With each paragraph and edit, he focused on the construction and flow of each argument. Writing, Greenwald explains, is a linear process, putting ideas and sentences in a logical progression. A brief, he says, is a special kind of writing that must be learned. It starts with a statement of fact or history, building a narrative. But it's also a work focused on clarity, without surprises or suspense. Hear Greenwald's discussion of the art, and science, of legal writing and the principles of a clear, persuasive argument. Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com and JAReeder@JonesDay.com. Resources: Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (Retired), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on C-SPAN  2026 Women in Litigation CLE Conference American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section  “Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing,” by David N. Greenwald

Have you ever thought about writing the perfect legal brief? Guest David N. Greenwald has, so much so that the retired partner from the firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore wrote a book on the subject, titled “Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing.” The book is the culmination of a 30-year legal career, beginning with a clerkship and the lessons learned under the guidance of the Hon. Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Reading, digesting, and understanding everything related to each brief proved to be the foundation of good legal writing, Greenwald says. Throughout his career, Greenwald intentionally honed his skills, from writing briefs to eventually, as a partner, editing them. With each paragraph and edit, he focused on the construction and flow of each argument. Writing, Greenwald explains, is a linear process, putting ideas and sentences in a logical progression. A brief, he says, is a special kind of writing that must be learned. It starts with a statement of fact or history, building a narrative. But it's also a work focused on clarity, without surprises or suspense. Hear Greenwald's discussion of the art, and science, of legal writing and the principles of a clear, persuasive argument. Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com and JAReeder@JonesDay.com. Resources: Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (Retired), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on C-SPAN  2026 Women in Litigation CLE Conference American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section  “Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing,” by David N. Greenwald Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Twenty-nine appeals judges have overturned a pro-Trump ruling on the use of the National Guard in Oregon, setting the stage for a new trial against the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the Seventh Circuit issued a head-scratching decision undermining a federal judge's attempt to rein in out-of-control federal leaders, and the Supreme Court dropped a bizarre late-afternoon ruling. Elsewhere, a federal judge came down hard on Trump's novice prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, and Trump's appeal of his criminal conviction already looks exhausted before oral arguments even begin. Legal AF is back with Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo to break it all down. Support Our Sponsors: Indacloud: Get 30% OFF your first order + FREE shipping @IndaCloud with code LEGALAF at https://indacloud.co Delete Me: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://deleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 50% off your first order PLUS free shipping! Jones Road Beauty: Use code LEGALAF at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Cool Gloss with your first purchase! #JonesRoadBeauty #ad Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello everyone and welcome back to This Week in Guns, brought to you by Patriot Patch Company, FFLPayments, Traditional Arms, and MAF Corporation. This show offers commentary on the latest firearms industry news, information and buzz. I'm your host Matthew Larosiere and I'm joined by the ratman. The End of an Era? The Glock Schism Traditional Arms: Fuddbusters and Ratman The Everytown Fun Safety Program LA Sheriff office gets sued by DOJ for being slow about gun permits MAF Corp: Fudbdusterss Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Woolford, Where DOJ is Amicus SCOTUS also takes up guns and durgs case FFL Payments Federal Government Shutdown Shits up NFA Forms, Wagies sent back to cagies but other issues remain Patriot patch Co. TWIG10 Highlight on the Adamiak case and update 0:00 Introduction and sponsors 0:24 Ivan's anecdotes and references 0:56 Matt's updates on delays and recent events 1:48 Glock rumors and discussion 3:17 Glock models and market analysis 6:20 Personal gun preferences and anecdotes 7:06 Public and market reaction to Glock changes 13:25 California's impact on Glock and firearm industry 20:29 Glock's new model rollout and associated risks 26:23 California's new gun law and its implications 32:25 Underground market and Glock's legal considerations 37:05 Sponsor: Traditional Arms LLC 37:50 NRA's current status and Everytown's firearm safety program 46:03 Everytown's internal issues and qualifications debate 55:16 DOJ's legal actions and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department case 59:29 Sponsor: MAF Arms 1:00:20 Supreme Court cases on gun rights and government roles 1:06:19 Sponsor: FFL Payment Processing 1:07:17 NFA firearms processing during government shutdown 1:10:02 Sponsor: Patriotpatch.co 1:10:35 Adamiak case update and Seventh Circuit arguments 1:19:07 DOJ's stance and actions in firearm-related cases 1:23:07 Thanks to Patreon supporters

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Senior Fellow Eric Columbus, Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina, and Public Service Fellow Loren Voss to talk through the week's big news in national security, including:“Visiting Concessions.” President Trump once again turned his focus to the conflict in Ukraine, announcing last week that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin would be meeting to discuss the conflict in Budapest—though it's not clear Putin has agreed. This occurred just days before a planned visit to the White House by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where Trump reportedly pressured him to make territorial concessions requested by Putin in exchange for an end to the conflict and failed to respond affirmatively to his requests for Tomahawk missiles and U.S. security commitments. Is this a real shift in the U.S. position? And what might it mean for the broader conflict?“Posse ComiSCOTUS.” After months of litigation in the lower courts, the Trump administration has finally gone to the Supreme Court regarding the legality of its domestic military deployments, seeking a stay on an injunction on its planned deployment to Chicago that was recently left in place by the Seventh Circuit. How big a decision point is this in terms of the legal authorities around domestic military deployments? And how does the Court seem poised to rule?“Material Contort.” Just weeks after designating ANTIFA a “domestic terrorism organization,” the Trump administration has brought its first set of related criminal charges, relating to a July event at a Texas immigration detention facility that left one police officer shot in the neck. The indictment includes charges under the material support for terrorism statute—but probably not the one you're thinking of. How much does the indictment stretch the usual use of these statutes? And what does it tell us about the Trump administration's anti-ANTIFA campaign?In object lessons, Loren thinks we should play more and recommends Wayside Farm for a pumpkin-picking, maize-mazing good time. Eric thinks we should get cozy more with a second-skin, chambray-shirt classic. Scott thinks we should reflect more with a majorly-meditative, lightlessly-enlightening retreat. And Nastya thinks we should read more with eloquent-essayist Zadie Smith's cultural commentary, “Feel Free.” To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Senior Fellow Eric Columbus, Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina, and Public Service Fellow Loren Voss to talk through the week's big news in national security, including:“Visiting Concessions.” President Trump once again turned his focus to the conflict in Ukraine, announcing last week that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin would be meeting to discuss the conflict in Budapest—though it's not clear Putin has agreed. This occurred just days before a planned visit to the White House by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where Trump reportedly pressured him to make territorial concessions requested by Putin in exchange for an end to the conflict and failed to respond affirmatively to his requests for Tomahawk missiles and U.S. security commitments. Is this a real shift in the U.S. position? And what might it mean for the broader conflict?“Posse ComiSCOTUS.” After months of litigation in the lower courts, the Trump administration has finally gone to the Supreme Court regarding the legality of its domestic military deployments, seeking a stay on an injunction on its planned deployment to Chicago that was recently left in place by the Seventh Circuit. How big a decision point is this in terms of the legal authorities around domestic military deployments? And how does the Court seem poised to rule?“Material Contort.” Just weeks after designating ANTIFA a “domestic terrorism organization,” the Trump administration has brought its first set of related criminal charges, relating to a July event at a Texas immigration detention facility that left one police officer shot in the neck. The indictment includes charges under the material support for terrorism statute—but probably not the one you're thinking of. How much does the indictment stretch the usual use of these statutes? And what does it tell us about the Trump administration's anti-ANTIFA campaign?In object lessons, Loren thinks we should play more and recommends Wayside Farm for a pumpkin-picking, maize-mazing good time. Eric thinks we should get cozy more with a second-skin, chambray-shirt classic. Scott thinks we should reflect more with a majorly-meditative, lightlessly-enlightening retreat. And Nastya thinks we should read more with eloquent-essayist Zadie Smith's cultural commentary, “Feel Free.” To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's make or break time for the rule of law at the Supreme Court, as the Trump administration's plan to flood the streets with troops comes to One First Street. The Ninth Circuit says: YES. The Seventh Circuit says: NO. Meanwhile in Virginia, Trump's insurance lawyer Lindsey Halligan is LARPing as US Attorney so she can prosecute his nemesis James Comey. Which motion to dismiss will put this dumb case out of its misery? Selective and vindictive prosecution? Halligan's unlawful appointment? Literal truth of the supposed false statements? And for bonus subscribers: ANTIFA is the new RICO.   Links:   US v. Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459121/united-states-v-comey/   US v. Giraud [Seventh Circuit Docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71195676/united-states-v-julien-giraud-jr/   Trump v. Illinois [SCOTUS DOCKET] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a443.html   Oregon v. Trump [Ninth Circuit Docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71554902/state-of-oregon-et-al-v-trump-et-al/   US v. Arnold (Hill)  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71664415/united-states-v-arnold/?order_by=desc   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In this episode of Ogletree Deakins' Litigation Lens podcast series, shareholders Michael Nail (Greenville) and Fiona Ong (Baltimore) dissect a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case concerning an accommodation request brought under the Rehabilitation Act. The speakers explain why the Seventh Circuit found the employer's alternative accommodation reasonable in a case involving a VA hospital employee's request for parking and scooter storage amid COVID-19-related entrance changes. Michael and Fiona—emphasize that accommodations must be effective, not perfect—and cover the interactive process, changing accommodations without proving undue hardship, and damages considerations.

This Day in Legal History: Supreme Court Denies Cert for RosenbergsOn October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage by passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The couple had been sentenced to death in 1951 following a high-profile trial that captivated Cold War-era America. The Rosenbergs' appeal was their final attempt to overturn the conviction and avoid execution. By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed their death sentences to stand without offering an opinion on the merits of the case.The decision intensified public debate over the fairness of their trial, with critics arguing that anti-communist hysteria had tainted the proceedings and supporters maintaining that the punishment fit the crime. Nearly a year later, on June 17, 1953, Justice William O. Douglas granted a temporary stay of execution after a new legal argument was raised involving the application of the Atomic Energy Act. However, the full Court reconvened in an emergency session and voted to vacate Douglas's stay the next day.The Rosenbergs were executed by electric chair at Sing Sing prison on June 19, 1953, marking the first and only time American civilians were executed for espionage during peacetime. Their case remains controversial, with questions still surrounding the extent of Ethel's involvement and the fairness of the trial. Over time, declassified documents, including material from the Venona project, have confirmed Julius's espionage activities but left lingering doubts about Ethel's role and the proportionality of her sentence.California enacted a new law (A.B. 931) that prohibits in-state lawyers and law firms from sharing contingency fees with out-of-state alternative business structures (ABS)—firms that are owned by non-lawyers. The bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, directly impacts litigation funding operations and firms based in states like Arizona, which began allowing non-lawyer ownership in 2021. Originally broader in scope, the bill was narrowed to specifically ban contingent fee sharing, a common payment model in mass tort and personal injury cases.The move is expected to disrupt partnerships between California lawyers and ABS firms in jurisdictions like Arizona, Utah, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Critics argue the law may harm both legal practitioners and consumers by limiting access to capital and cross-border collaboration. Amendments to the bill in August preserved certain flat fee and fixed fee arrangements, allowing some limited forms of financial collaboration to continue. KPMG, which recently launched a law firm in Arizona, declined to comment on whether the new restrictions would impact its plans to partner with attorneys nationwide.California Bans Contingent Fee Sharing With ‘Alternative' FirmsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency request to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, upholding a lower court's temporary block on the mobilization. The deployment plan included troops from the Texas National Guard, aimed at supporting federal agents during recent protests in the Chicago area. However, the court allowed those already present in Illinois to remain, pending further legal developments.U.S. District Judge April Perry had earlier questioned the administration's claims that troops were necessary to protect federal personnel from violent unrest, citing a lack of clear justification. Her order blocking the deployment is set to last until at least October 23, with the possibility of extension. Similar legal challenges are unfolding elsewhere, including in Oregon, where another judge blocked troop deployments to Portland. That ruling, however, may be overturned by a different appellate court.Democratic governors in affected states have argued that the administration exaggerated threats from largely peaceful protests to justify military action. A court in Los Angeles also ruled a previous deployment illegal, though that decision is on hold pending appeal. Under U.S. law, the National Guard typically operates under state control during domestic missions, making federal involvement a contentious legal issue.Appeals court rejects Trump request to deploy National Guard in Chicago area | ReutersFederal courts in New England—particularly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine—have emerged as strategic venues for legal challenges against President Donald Trump's policies since his return to office in January 2025. A Reuters analysis found at least 72 lawsuits targeting Trump's policies filed in these four states, with trial judges ruling against the administration in 46 out of 51 cases decided so far. These challenges include efforts to block the administration's actions on deportations, federal education cuts, changes to birthright citizenship, and fast-tracked deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan.The region's courts fall under the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has all five of its active judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Litigants see these courts as favorable due to their composition—17 of 20 active trial judges in the region are also Democratic appointees. Judges like William Young in Boston and Allison Burroughs have issued high-profile rulings against Trump, with Young warning of threats to constitutional values and Burroughs urging courts to defend free speech. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island has also issued significant decisions, such as blocking a sweeping federal funding freeze.While the 1st Circuit has mostly upheld lower court rulings against Trump, the Supreme Court—dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority—has stepped in multiple times to stay or reverse those decisions. Still, the administration has not appealed every ruling, allowing some key decisions to remain in place, including those affecting mail-in ballot rules and funding for arts groups and Head Start programs. Democratic attorneys general are actively choosing New England courts for their reliability, with one noting that “you kind of know what you're getting.”New England courts become a battleground for challenges to Trump | Reuters 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

Join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for an in-depth dive into the career and jurisprudential mind of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The occasion for doing so is the publication in September of Justice Barrett's new book, Listening to the Law. Anchoring Truths featured an exclusive review of the book by Michael A. Fragoso. Fragoso joins the podcast to discuss his review. Fragoso was not only a student of the justice while in law school at Notre Dame, but also one of the Senate staffers most responsible for her confirmation to the Supreme Court. He brings a fascinating and unique perspective to the path the justice has taken to the Court and the approach to judging she details in the book.Fragoso is currently Partner at Torridon LLC, the boutique law firm founded by former AG Bill Barr. Before joining Torridon, he was chief counsel to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Fragoso was the Leader's primary legal advisor and managed the “last mile” of any legislation touching on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also repeatedly represented Leader McConnell as counsel of record at the Supreme Court. Leader McConnell said of Fragoso that he's “equally at home in the high-minded philosophical discourse of the legal community and the urgent pragmatism of Congressional dealmaking,” and that he “maintains a firm grasp on the realm of the possible” but “knows which screws to twist.” He observed that Mike “is so exceptionally competent that he often produces from his desk the work that would normally require, literally, teams of outside counsel.”Fragoso previously was chief counsel for nominations and constitutional law for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Ranking Member Chuck Grassley and Chairman Lindsey Graham. During this time, he advised the Senators on two presidential impeachments, ran multiple policy hearings, and managed the confirmation process for over 80 federal judges, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Chairman Graham described Fragoso as “a force of nature.” He frequently comments on public affairs, and his writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.Fragoso has also served as a law clerk to Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is a graduate of Notre Dame Law School and Princeton University.

In episode seven of NAWL's Bridging Divides series, NAWL member Marlow Svatek speaks with Kelly Kribs, Attorney at the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights, about the organization's mission and its work supporting immigrant children. They examine the 2018 family separation crisis, its lasting impact, and the reemergence of similar policies today. This episode highlights the legal and emotional consequences of child separation, the importance of mental health for advocates, and practical ways legal professionals can support immigrant families. Don't miss this urgent and inspiring dialogue at the intersection of immigration, justice, and child welfare. Learn more about the Young Center and explore how YOU can make a meaningful impact in the immigration space today: Young Center Speaker Bios:  Kelly Albinak Kribs is a Co-Director for the Young Center's Technical Assistance Program, which offers case consultation, connection to resources, training, and mentorship to attorneys and professionals working with immigrant children impacted by the domestic child welfare system. Kelly first joined the Young Center in 2016 and previously served as the Managing Attorney of the Child Advocate Program team in the Chicago office. In her time at the Young Center, Kelly has drawn upon principles of child welfare, international, and immigration law in order to evaluate and execute best interests advocacy on behalf of unaccompanied and separated immigrant children on matters of their care, custody, reunification, safe repatriation, and legal relief. She has collaborated closely with social worker colleagues to help develop an interdisciplinary approach to assessing best interests as well as best practices for child-centered, developmentally appropriate, and trauma-informed engagement with immigrant children. Before joining the Young Center, she worked in private practice and clerked for a federal district court judge. She received her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School and her undergraduate degree in communications from Northwestern University. Prior to attending law school, Kelly worked at a research center on Latin American issues and taught English in Nicaragua. She first began serving as a volunteer child advocate with the Young Center in 2008. Marlow Svatek is an associate in Barack Ferrazzano's litigation group, where her practice spans a variety of substantive areas, including consumer class actions, business disputes, and securities and shareholder derivative matters. Marlow has extensive experience drafting dispositive motions and appellate briefs, managing discovery, taking depositions, preparing fact and expert witnesses for deposition and trial, and trying cases in court and before arbitration tribunals.Prior to joining Barack Ferrazzano, Marlow was a litigation associate at Sidley Austin in Chicago. She clerked for the Honorable Judge Joel M. Flaum on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in California. Before becoming an attorney, Marlow was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Burkina Faso.Marlow also maintains an active pro bono practice. She has successfully obtained asylum for several individuals in deportation proceedings. Marlow was also the lead associate on the impact litigation team challenging the Department of Homeland Security's “public charge” rule, in which she successfully argued several motions in the district court and led multiple rounds of briefing in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court, ultimately obtaining a nationwide vacatur of the challenged rule. In recognition of her outstanding pro bono service in protection of immigrant rights, Marlow was named a “Rising Star” by the National Immigrant Justice Center in 2020 and received the Award for Excellence in Public Interest Service from the Judges of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.Outside of her practice, Marlow is dedicated to promoting pro bono work and the advancement of women lawyers in the profession. She previously served as Chair of the Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI) Alumni Network Leadership Council and as a writer-in-residence for Ms. JD. She is also on the Annual Meeting Host Committee for the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL). 

In This Episode Erin and Weer'd discuss: Maine families suing the US Army for not stopping the Lewiston Shooter; New York being ordered to pay $800K for the house of worship gun ban; the DOJ asking to speak against Assault Weapon Bans in the Illinois court challenge. Rather then Weer'd or Erin, Lara Smith of the Liberal Gun Club discusses the problems with the proposed trans gun ban; and Sean Sorrentino and Robb Allen talk about SSRI medication, the stigma against it, and why not everyone who takes SSRIs is dangerous. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic Lewiston shooting survivors, victims' families file lawsuit against US Army New York Ordered to Pay $800K After Church Challenges Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship Following its amicus brief in support of us, the federal government has asked the Seventh Circuit for approval to participate in oral arguments in our lawsuit challenging Illinois' "assault weapon" and magazine bans Lara Smith Trump DOJ Weighs Ban on Trans People Owning Guns EXCLUSIVE: Full Transcript: Daily Caller Interviews President Donald Trump Canaries in the Gun Rights Coal Mine Liberal Gun Club Sean and Robb Robb Allen Twitter Moth, Rust, and Thieves on Spotify  

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I unpack the latest information about the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, including details suggesting troubling parallels with other recent acts of political violence. We also cover a pair of federal appeals court rulings upholding gun-free zone restrictions in Illinois and New Jersey.

Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins Cam to discuss the pushback to the proposed gun ban for individuals who identify as transgender floated by unnamed DOJ staffers, as well as the Seventh Circuit's recent decision upholding Illinois' "gun-free zones" for public transportation.

Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins Cam to discuss the pushback to the proposed gun ban for individuals who identify as transgender floated by unnamed DOJ staffers, as well as the Seventh Circuit's recent decision upholding Illinois' "gun-free zones" for public transportation.

This week, we dig into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's new Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action notice standard, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) relaunched Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, and the DOL's scaled-back approach to wage and hour investigation penalties. Seventh Circuit's New Standard for FLSA Notice  The Seventh Circuit has introduced the Richards framework, a middle-ground standard for FLSA collective actions. This decision deepens the circuit split over notices to potential plaintiffs and could lead to Supreme Court involvement. Learn how this could impact your compliance strategies. DOL Relaunches PAID Program  The DOL has relaunched the PAID program, letting employers self-report FLSA violations to avoid litigation or liquidated damages. The program now covers select Family and Medical Leave Act corrections. Discover how this voluntary option supports compliance. Wage and Hour Investigation Penalties Scaled Back A new DOL directive reduces penalties during wage and hour audits. Liquidated damages won't apply in pre-litigation investigations but may still be pursued in litigation. See how this change could affect your risk management strategies.  -- Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw401 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Join us for this episode as Professor Robert Luther anticipates judicial nomination selection in Trump's second term. Professor Luther asks two types of questions: formally, "How will the Senate composition impact Judicial Nominations?" "How many seats will be open to fill? Will blue slips still apply for district courts?" "Will any circuit seats be moved to different states?" and substantively, "What types of judges will President Trump nominate and how will this differ from his last term?"Robert Luther, III was appointed Associate Professor of Law in 2025 at Antonin Scalia Law. He teaches and writes on the federal courts, legal and judicial ethics, political law, Congress, and professional sports. He has served at high levels in all three branches of the federal government and recently founded Constitutional Solutions PLLC—a law firm that navigates judicial candidates, judges, elected officials, professional athletes, and executives through high-stakes hearings, investigations, and reputational attacks.Immediately before joining the Scalia Law faculty, Professor Luther spent over five years in the Washington, D.C. office of Jones Day, where his practice focused on strategic counseling, crisis management, and litigation. Prior to joining Jones Day, he served as Associate Counsel to the President of the United States in the White House Counsel's Office. In the White House, he co-managed the judicial selection process and supervised the preparation of over 150 federal judicial nominees for their successful U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. The New York Times Magazine referred to his work on judicial selection during this period as “unique in White House history.” Before joining the White House, Professor Luther served as Counsel to then–U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where he served as a core member of the team that prepared the Senator for confirmation as United States Attorney General. Professor Luther was also a law clerk to Judge Daniel A. Manion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Earlier in his career, Professor Luther practiced civil and appellate litigation at a boutique firm in Williamsburg, Va. and taught at William & Mary Law School.Professor Luther frequently speaks on the legal profession, political law, and federal judicial selection. His public work has been covered by or appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Fox News, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, National Law Journal, Law360, The Washington Reporter, and elsewhere, while his scholarship is published in the law journals of nearly twenty universities including Harvard, Georgetown, Texas, William & Mary, UC-Davis, UC Law San Francisco, Howard University, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Richmond, and Marquette University. He holds active law licenses in Virginia, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court, and half of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Professor Luther serves on the Advisory Board of the Wilson Center for Leadership at Hampden-Sydney College. Since 2019, over 150 of his former students have secured clerkships with federal judges.

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn't want to hear about […]

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn’t want to hear about “Board law.” The judges, he said, could read the statute for themselves. That statement was controversial and thought-provoking. After last term’s blockbuster decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts are no longer supposed to defer to administrative agencies on legal questions. So does that mean Board law is dead? Or is the issue more complicated? Join our panelists as we dissect the issue.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of LawAlexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.(Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC

Margot Cleveland is a Senior Legal Correspondent at The Federalist and serves as Of Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Professor Cleveland has 25 years of experience as a law clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and previously held a full-time faculty position at the University of Notre Dame.FOLLOW Professor Margot Cleveland on X: @ProfMJCleveland SUPPORT OUR WORK https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/thank-youtube/ VISIT OUR WEBSITE http://www.judicialwatch.org

Antitrust: Do the NCAA's student eligibility rules unlawfully restrain trade? - Argued: Wed, 28 May 2025 11:27:36 EDT

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker dive into two significant legal topics that are currently shaping the landscape of litigation in the United States. The tax and spending bill (a.k.a. 'The Big Beautiful Bill') has raised eyebrows due to its implications for federal court contempt powers. The bill, which passed the House by a narrow margin, includes a provision that could severely limit federal courts' ability to enforce temporary restraining orders (TROs) & injunctions, in contrast to most new legislation it is written to be retroactive affecting previous rulings issued by federal courts. Specifically, the provision states that no court may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or TRO if no security was provided when the order was issued. This change could have far-reaching consequences, particularly in immigration cases and other areas of law where TROs are commonly sought. Jack explains the mechanics of Federal Rule 65C, which requires parties seeking injunctions to provide a surety bond to cover potential damages if the injunction is later found to be wrongful. The discussion highlights the potential chaos that could ensue if existing injunctions without bonds become unenforceable, particularly in cases involving civil rights and government actions.We then shift focus to the use of pseudonyms in litigation, and the delicate balance between the public's right to access judicial proceedings and the need for individuals to protect their identities in sensitive cases. Recent court decisions have indicated that the avoidance of reputational harm is not a compelling enough reason to allow litigants to proceed anonymously. A notable case from the Seventh Circuit involving a lawsuit against the University of Illinois, Initially allowed to proceed under a pseudonym, the university later objected. This case underscores the challenges faced by individuals who may have legitimate reasons for wanting to protect their anonymity, particularly in cases involving sensitive allegations.We encourage our listeners to stay informed about how these issues may affect their rights and responsibilities in litigation.Join us as we discuss the complexities of critical topics and we encourage our listeners to stay informed about how these issues may affect their rights and responsibilities in litigation.. Don't forget to subscribe to Litigation Nation for more updates on legal news and analysis!