Podcasts about sixth circuit

The separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law are critical elements of American constitutional democracy. Judge Bernice Donald, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Judge Robert Kugler, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and Judge Thomas Griffith, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, explore the current state of these fundamental constitutional principles. Julie Silverbrook, the chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was presented in partnership with Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, a bipartisan group of retired federal district and circuit court judges dedicated to safeguarding the separation of powers and preserving an independent judiciary. The Coalition's civic education work informs citizens why an independent judiciary matters, how courts safeguard rights and maintain constitutional checks and balances, and the critical role that impartial justice plays in keeping our republic. Resources  Constitution 101: Separation of Powers and Federalism, National Constitution Center Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Workers at Trinity Health Grand Haven Hospital voted 89 to 66 to keep their union — after their employer had already illegally stripped it from them. The NLRB went to court seeking an emergency order to restore recognition while the case was litigated. Two Trump-appointed Sixth Circuit judges said no. The dissent came from a Reagan appointee. On this episode of America's Work Force Union Podcast, union attorney and Brooklyn Law School adjunct professor Andrew Strom breaks down what that ruling means, why the NLRA's four-year enforcement process makes preliminary injunctions the only real deterrent against illegal employer conduct and why the same court that gives employers automatic injunctions against workers who violate non-compete agreements refuses to apply the same logic when employers strip workers of their collective bargaining rights. Read the full analysis at onlabor.org.

In this episode, Jordan breaks down a major statute of limitations ruling from the Federal Circuit, which erased a massive verdict, and a Sixth Circuit decision clarifying the plaintiff's burden of proof when seeking a preliminary injunction.

DOCKET ALERTS:   We bid a fond goodbye to Ed Martin … well, fond-ish.   Liam Ramos, the little boy kidnapped by ICE in Minneapolis along with his father is back home after a judge in Texas granted his habeas petition. Read the scathing order here.   Judge Jia Cobb re-imposed a temporary restraining order barring DHS from excluding legislators from immigrant detention facilities.    Two immigrant rights groups challenged ICE's homebrew arrest warrants.   The Trump administration finally got that perp walk of Don Lemon. Two weeks ago, a federal magistrate refused to issue an arrest warrant for Lemon, Minnesota journalist Georgia Fort, and three others who were present at the MLK Day protest at a church whose pastor David Easterbrook is an ICE supervisor. Now a grand jury has indicted all eight of the DOJ's original targets.   Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit dropkicked the DOJ's judicial ethics complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court in DC. The complaint is based on leaked notes from a closed judicial conference in March, which Law and Chaos is suing to kick loose under FOIA. The Signalgate administration says it has no idea how this judicial record wound up on its servers.    Liz and Andrew sound off on Chief Justice Roberts forcing SCOTUS employees to sign NDAs.   Donald Trump sues the IRS — it's like suing himself, but you get to foot the bill.   And we ponder whether Trump can legally burn down the Kennedy Center Make the Kennedy Center Great Again.   Plus for subscribers: Andrew's got a deep dive into the Death on the High Seas Act and the lawsuit filed by survivors of two men murdered in the Caribbean boat strikes.   Justice Dept. demotes Ed Martin, stripping Trump ally of most authority https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/02/02/ed-martin-demoted-justice-department   Liam Ramos Habeas Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492.9.0_3.pdf   TRO Enjoining DHS from Excluding Legislators From Immigration Facilities https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200.52.0.pdf   The Perp Walk Is The Point https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/the-perp-walk-is-the-point   US v. Armstrong [Don Lemon Indictment] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231103/gov.uscourts.mnd.231103.39.0_1.pdf   DOJ Attacks Judge, Claims Judicial Immunity For Itself https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/doj-attacks-judge-using-leaked-doc   Judge Sutton Dismissed DOJ Complaint Re Judge Boasberg https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/judicial_complaints/files/2025/06-25-90173(Chad.MO.pdf   Res Ipsa Media v. DOJ [L&C FOIA suit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71236135/res-ipsa-media-llc-v-department-of-justice   How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/us/supreme-court-nondisclosure-agreements.html   Trump v. IRS https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.1.0_4.pdf   Boat Strike Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294916/gov.uscourts.mad.294916.1.0_1.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Free Speech: May cities ban the flying of the Pride Flag on municipal flag poles? - Argued: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:54:52 EDT

In this reprise episode, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit shares how the relationships she formed throughout her career paved the way for her to become the first woman trial judge of a court of record in Tennessee, followed by distinguished service on both the U.S. District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is the recipient of the Devitt Award, the highest honor awarded to an Article III judge, for significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and improvement of society as a whole. Listen in as Judge Gibbons shares insights gained throughout her trailblazing career.

Episode 50: The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue ServiceThe Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service, argued before Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Chad A. Readler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan (on behalf of The Buckeye Institute) and Michael Weisbuch (on behalf of the federal government). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech website:  The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a tax law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities disclose the private information of their largest donors each year. Represented by attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech and its own attorneys, Buckeye's lawsuit says the law violates the First Amendment and the requirement chills free speech and association. The IRS has admitted that it does not need these donor records, and it issued a rule in 2020 to stop collecting the same from other tax-exempt groups that are not classified as section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities. The agency noted in that 2020 rulemaking that its collection of this sensitive personal data on Form 990 Schedule B “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure” of private, non-public information. Even though the IRS has stated in similar contexts that it would prefer not to collect this information from charities, federal law requires doing so for 501(c)(3)s.  The lawsuit claims that Buckeye's work “would be significantly damaged” if it could not maintain the confidentiality of its donor relationships, as Buckeye's supporters “risk retribution from some who oppose its mission.” The recent leak to ProPublica of “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands” of individual taxpayers and other IRS leaks understandably give financial supporters of certain charities, including Buckeye, justified pause...A special procedure in federal law allows federal appellate courts to review a ruling before the case is decided. That's the situation in this appeal. The government disagreed with Judge Watson's ruling that exacting scrutiny applied, and asked the appeals court for permission to review his opinion. Both Judge Watson and the Sixth Circuit granted the request for review. Statement of Issues, from the Appellee's Brief:Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)'s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.”Whether the Court can enter judgment against the plaintiff-appellee, determining that § 6033(b)(5) does not violate the First Amendment, without affording the plaintiff-appellee an opportunity for discovery or factual development. Resources:    Institute for Free Speech case page (contains all documents)Opening Brief for the AppellantAppellee's BriefSixth Circuit Order Granting the Petition for Interlocutory ReviewInstitute for Free Speech Blog Post, “Court: IRS Donor Disclosure Law Must Overcome Exacting Scrutiny”The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

This Day in Legal History: Richard Nixon DiesOn April 22, 1994, Richard Nixon died at the age of 81, marking the end of a presidency that left a lasting imprint on American legal history. Nixon's legacy is inseparable from the Watergate scandal, a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of presidential power. The scandal began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and expanded into a wide-ranging investigation of abuse of executive authority. As evidence mounted, legal battles emerged over whether a sitting president could withhold information under claims of executive privilege.The issue came to a head in the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, where the Court unanimously ruled that the president must comply with a subpoena to release tape recordings. This decision significantly narrowed the scope of executive privilege, establishing that it is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. The ruling reinforced the principle that even the president is subject to the rule of law. Facing near-certain impeachment, Nixon resigned in August 1974, becoming the first U.S. president to do so.His resignation demonstrated the strength of constitutional checks and balances, particularly Congress's oversight authority and the judiciary's role in resolving disputes over executive power. In the years that followed, Watergate prompted reforms such as the War Powers Resolution and amendments to campaign finance laws. Legal scholars continue to cite the episode as a defining moment in the development of accountability for high-ranking officials. Nixon's death in 1994 closed a chapter, but the legal principles shaped during Watergate remain central to debates over presidential authority.West Virginia reached an $11 million settlement with Roblox to address concerns about child safety on the platform. The agreement follows a nine-month investigation led by Attorney General JB McCuskey, which found that existing safeguards exposed children to explicit content and potential predators. As part of the deal, Roblox must implement mandatory age verification before users can access chat features, aiming to reduce anonymous misuse. The platform will also restrict adults from contacting users under 16 unless they are verified trusted connections. Additional protections include default safe-content settings for minors and alerts when young users enter private chats for the first time.The settlement allocates funds over several years, including money for public safety campaigns, internet safety specialists, and educational workshops. Roblox stated that the agreement aligns with its broader goal of improving digital safety and collaborating with regulators. This deal comes amid similar actions by other states, including a recent agreement in Nevada with comparable age verification measures. Multiple lawsuits across the country accuse Roblox of failing to prevent adults from exploiting minors on the platform. Many of these cases have been consolidated in federal court in California, where plaintiffs allege harm resulting from online grooming.W.Va. Strikes $11.5M Deal With Roblox Over Kid Safety - Law360A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas can require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, overturning a lower court order that had blocked the law. The decision upheld Texas Senate Bill 10, finding that the requirement does not violate the Constitution's protections against government establishment of religion or its guarantees of religious freedom. The majority reasoned that the law does not force anyone to adopt religious beliefs or interfere with how individuals practice their faith.The challenge was brought by families from various religious and nonreligious backgrounds, who argued that the mandate infringes on their right to control their children's religious upbringing. Their attorney indicated plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the decision, calling it a victory for the state and emphasizing the historical influence of the Ten Commandments.The ruling was not unanimous, with a strong dissent arguing that the court ignored binding Supreme Court precedent. The dissent pointed to a 1980 Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar Kentucky law, suggesting the Texas measure should also be unconstitutional. By reversing the earlier injunction, the appeals court cleared the way for the law to take effect while further appeals are expected.Texas can require Ten Commandments in classrooms, US appeals court rules | ReutersLabor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer stepped down from her role in U.S. Department of Labor amid controversy tied to an internal watchdog investigation into alleged misconduct. The probe reportedly examined claims of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, along with other workplace concerns, though some allegations were publicly disputed. Her departure follows weeks of media coverage and discussion during a congressional oversight hearing.The White House announced that Chavez-DeRemer will move to a private-sector position, while Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling will serve as acting head of the agency. In public statements, Chavez-DeRemer highlighted her efforts to support workers, expand job training, and address economic issues during her tenure, while administration officials praised her leadership.The situation also involved broader personnel disruptions, including reports that several aides were placed on leave or left their positions. Additional complaints and allegations—some denied or unproven—contributed to scrutiny surrounding her leadership. Her husband was also investigated over separate allegations, though no charges were filed.Chavez-DeRemer's exit adds to other recent Cabinet-level departures during Donald Trump's administration. Lawmakers, including Representative Rosa DeLauro, criticized the situation as a leadership failure and called for a replacement focused on the department's mission. Observers noted that Sonderling could be a leading candidate for the permanent role, though no official nomination has been announced.Trump's Labor Secretary Steps Down - Law360A federal appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, ruled that a nearly 160-year-old ban on home distilling is constitutional, deepening a disagreement with another appellate court. The court said the prohibition is a valid way for Congress to ensure collection of excise taxes on distilled spirits, reasoning that allowing home production could lead to widespread tax evasion. The case was brought by John Ream, who wanted to distill whiskey at home for personal use.The ruling comes shortly after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, finding the same law unnecessary and unconstitutional. This disagreement between appellate courts—known as a circuit split—raises the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will step in to resolve the issue. Ream's legal team has already indicated plans to appeal.The law at issue dates back to 1868, when Congress enacted it during Reconstruction to combat liquor tax evasion. Violations can carry significant penalties, including prison time and fines. In upholding the ban, the majority opinion emphasized Congress's longstanding rationale that prohibiting home distilling encourages consumers to buy taxed alcohol instead. A dissenting judge, however, argued the case should not proceed because Ream failed to show he faced a real risk of prosecution.US appeals court calls 158-year-old home distilling ban constitutional, creates split | 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

In this episode, Suzanne Spradley and Chase Cannon discuss two recent circuit court decisions and their impact on employer-sponsored group health plans. Suzanne first discusses a Sixth Circuit decision involving a state law that attempts to regulate PBMs. Suzanne and Chase walk through Supreme Court precedent that appears to be driving states to enact PBM laws, and they explain how ERISA preemption is at the heart of it all. Suzanne concludes the podcast by outlining another federal decision relating to a fiduciary breach claim of an employer group health plan.

BE HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to use force in defense of yourself, your family, or your property! FREE WEBINAR! Saturday, April 25!  FREE but you MUST REGISTER NOW:  hardtoconvict.comAll @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2kJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kfFOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nzTODAY's MEMBERS-ONLY SHOW: “Trump Blockades Iran — Here's What Comes Next!”YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/bdw7ps2xLocals: https://tinyurl.com/ye25m6f6This past Friday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down a landmark ruling in McNutt v. DOJ, striking down the federal statutes that have criminalized home distilling for over 150 years. The law, rooted in an 1868 tax act, made it a federal crime — punishable by up to five years in prison — to operate a still in any home, yard, shed, or enclosure connected to a residence. Remarkably, the basis for striking down the home distillation ban was the court's finding that the Federal government had exceeded its Constitutional tax authority—in other words, a court recognized that the federal government does not have infinite authority to suppress the liberties of American citizens simply by calling that suppression “a tax.”Today we'll break down the Fifth Circuit's full reasoning, which rests on two constitutional pillars: the Taxation Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. I'll explain exactly what those constitutional tests mean, how the court applied them, and what the government got wrong in its defense.This ruling is not the end of the story — a parallel case, Ream v. DOT, is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit, meaning there's a real possibility of a circuit split and eventual Supreme Court review. And while this decision enjoins federal enforcement, state laws on home distilling remain separately on the books. Andrew breaks down what the ruling actually does and doesn't do, what comes next legally, and why this case matters well beyond whiskey — as a serious check on the federal government's power to criminalize what Americans do inside their own homes. Subscribe to The Branca Show for expert legal analysis you won't find anywhere else, and drop your questions in the comments.Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down!Episode #1283.

Send us Fan MailJoin Boozy, the certified legal layman Alkali, and their special guest voice actor and criminal defense attorney Krystal LaPorte for a live recording at Furthemore 2026 in Baltimore, Maryland!This time they explore the law of agency, when you have to pay a real estate broker, and dirty dealings in the early 20th Century Baltimore hotel market from the ballroom of the historic and haunted Lord Baltimore Hotel.  The case is Stokes v. Wolf, 112 A. 566 (Md. 1921) and the while the subject matter may seem dry there was no way Boozy was passing up a case with a party named "Harry Wolf" at a furry convention.In addition:  What happens when lawyers decide to double down on AI?  The Sixth Circuit responds.  Also, the selfie that ended representation in a landmark legal case about social media.Show Notes over on the PatreonLegal Funhouse Theme by Status Ferret. Check out his stuff here!Support the showSupport Boozy and the show over on Patreon, Kofi, or maybe watch him at Twitch.  You can read his writings and get updates about performances, releases, bonus material, and case materials at Lawyers & Liquor, his website. If you want to support Alkali, you can do that at his Twitch channel or on their Patreon!

What employers should know about key developments this week: Sixth Circuit Rejects Cemex Bargaining Order: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to enforce a bargaining order issued under the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) 2023 Cemex standard. Cemex Remains in Effect Outside the Sixth Circuit: The NLRB continues to treat Cemex as binding policy in all other jurisdictions, leaving employers outside the Sixth Circuit's reach exposed to bargaining orders under the standard.  A Formal Reversal May Be Coming: With its current composition, the NLRB is widely expected to reject Cemex outright when the appropriate case arises—thereby restoring the long-standing framework requiring unions to win a representation election before gaining recognition. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Steven M. Swirsky provides insights on the Sixth Circuit's decision and what it means for employers navigating union recognition demands. - Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw428 Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm that focuses its resources on health care, life sciences, and workforce management solutions, coupled with powerful litigation strategies. This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship.  EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

Tribes in Michigan oppose Enbridge the Line 5 oil pipeline replacement plan, arguing the environmental risks to their traditional waters far outweigh any benefits. The proposal to replace the 70-year-old pipeline that currently runs through Michigan and Wisconsin has faced many legal challenges over the years. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the state or federal government should have say over how the project proceeds. The decision could set a precedent on how much power tribes and states have in regulating fossil fuel development. We’ll speak with tribal leaders, Native legal scholars, and others about what's next for the ongoing Line 5 pipeline legal battle. GUESTS Wenona Singel (Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa), associate professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law and associate director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center Elizabeth Arbuckle (Bad River), chairwoman of the Bad River Tribe Melissa Kay, Tribal Water Institute fellow at the Native American Rights Fund Break 1 Music: Nothing New Since 1492 (song) RematriNation (artist) Break 2 Music: Hard Times Will Be Coming (song) Courtney Yellow Fat (artist) The Lost Songs of Sitting Bull (album) The full statement by Enbridge on the U.S. Supreme Court case: We are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments and is reviewing the June 2024 decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit's ruling conflicts with decisions issued by two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court's review will provide needed clarity by resolving that conflict. For more than six years, the Attorney General has attempted to shut down Line 5 based on perceived safety concerns. However, the safety of Line 5 is regulated exclusively by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation. PHMSA conducts annual reviews of Line 5's safety compliance across the Straits of Mackinac and has not identified any safety issues with its continued operation. There are also significant implications for energy security and foreign affairs if the Attorney General continues to pursue the lawsuit now in state court. We believe that federal law prohibits the Attorney General from shutting down Line 5. A shutdown of Line 5 would undermine the 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty, which prohibits Michigan from impeding the operation of the pipeline. It would also undermine the legal doctrine that reserves foreign affairs matters for the federal government. The lawful operation of the Line 5 Dual Pipelines continues to be vital to provide needed petroleum products, including home heating and transportation fuels, to Michiganders, the Detroit Metro Airport, and the surrounding region.  We value our relationships with all the communities and community members in areas where Enbridge has assets. As we continue to move closer to construction on the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, we remain committed to including Tribes and Tribal citizens in this incredibly important and consequential project and welcome constructive dialogue and engagement. Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure. The Great Lakes Tunnel makes a safe pipeline safer while also ensuring the continued safe, secure, and affordable delivery of essential energy to the Great Lakes region. 

Tribes in Michigan oppose Enbridge the Line 5 oil pipeline replacement plan, arguing the environmental risks to their traditional waters far outweigh any benefits. The proposal to replace the 70-year-old pipeline that currently runs through Michigan and Wisconsin has faced many legal challenges over the years. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the state or federal government should have say over how the project proceeds. The decision could set a precedent on how much power tribes and states have in regulating fossil fuel development. We’ll speak with tribal leaders, Native legal scholars, and others about what's next for the ongoing Line 5 pipeline legal battle. GUESTS Wenona Singel (Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa), associate professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law and associate director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center Elizabeth Arbuckle (Bad River), chairwoman of the Bad River Tribe Melissa Kay, Tribal Water Institute fellow at the Native American Rights Fund Break 1 Music: Nothing New Since 1492 (song) RematriNation (artist) Break 2 Music: Hard Times Will Be Coming (song) Courtney Yellow Fat (artist) The Lost Songs of Sitting Bull (album) The full statement by Enbridge on the U.S. Supreme Court case: We are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments and is reviewing the June 2024 decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit's ruling conflicts with decisions issued by two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court's review will provide needed clarity by resolving that conflict. For more than six years, the Attorney General has attempted to shut down Line 5 based on perceived safety concerns. However, the safety of Line 5 is regulated exclusively by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation. PHMSA conducts annual reviews of Line 5's safety compliance across the Straits of Mackinac and has not identified any safety issues with its continued operation. There are also significant implications for energy security and foreign affairs if the Attorney General continues to pursue the lawsuit now in state court. We believe that federal law prohibits the Attorney General from shutting down Line 5. A shutdown of Line 5 would undermine the 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty, which prohibits Michigan from impeding the operation of the pipeline. It would also undermine the legal doctrine that reserves foreign affairs matters for the federal government. The lawful operation of the Line 5 Dual Pipelines continues to be vital to provide needed petroleum products, including home heating and transportation fuels, to Michiganders, the Detroit Metro Airport, and the surrounding region.  We value our relationships with all the communities and community members in areas where Enbridge has assets. As we continue to move closer to construction on the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, we remain committed to including Tribes and Tribal citizens in this incredibly important and consequential project and welcome constructive dialogue and engagement. Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure. The Great Lakes Tunnel makes a safe pipeline safer while also ensuring the continued safe, secure, and affordable delivery of essential energy to the Great Lakes region. 

Episode 9 High-Profile Labor Disputes to Watch Hosted by Mark G. Eskenazi and Ian Meklinsky What the court's decision on a Biden-era barging order standard could mean for your business. Also covered: new guidelines on EAJA letters and the Railway Labor Act is found to have jurisdiction over a space exploration company. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the participants and should not be considered the views of Fox Rothschild LLP or its attorneys. This podcast is for informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Pung v. Isabella County | 02/25/26 | Docket #: 25-95 25-95 PUNG V. ISABELLA COUNTY, MICHIGAN DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 318222 CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Isabella County confiscated the Pung Estate's private home for approximately $2,200 in taxes and fees (that were never actually owed). The lower courts used the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value as the starting point for its damages calculation. The Sixth Circuit and others have held that the "fair market value" taken is not what is owed to begin to fulfill the constitutional compensatory obligation imposed by the Fifth Amendment. That defies this Court's precedents. And if it is not taken within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, it is otherwise an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment by imposing a punishment by pilfering far more than ever needed to satisfy a small debt. The questions presented are: 1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value? 2. Whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1919, 22-1939

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

In 1957, 6-year-old Bernice Bouie Donald started first grade in rural DeSoto County, Mississippi. Although the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down school segregation three years earlier in Brown v. Board of Education, the young girl's educational reality remained unchanged: Her all-Black school was a two-room cinderblock building with no indoor plumbing, and her books were hand-me-downs discarded by white students.Donald went on to have a decadeslong career as a federal judge, and at a recent UC Berkeley Law event, she shared her personal memories to highlight a sobering truth: The rule of law is not self-executing. For the promise of Brown to reach her classroom, Donald explained, it required "extreme moral courage" from judges who faced bombings, social ostracization and death threats to enforce the law. Without that bravery, she warned, the law is "simply words on a piece of paper."This ongoing challenge was at the heart of a Dec. 5, 2025, panel discussion featuring Donald and a group of legal experts. Together, the panelists discussed the rising tide of personal and political threats facing the judiciary, exploring how modern pressures — from social media harassment to political tribalism — threaten the independence necessary for a fair society.The event was part of “Conversations in Civil Justice,” a webinar series presented by UC Berkeley Law's Civil Justice Research Initiative and co-sponsored by the Berkeley Judicial Institute. The series is supported by a gift from the American Association for Justice's Robert L. Habush Endowment.The panelists include:Bernice Bouie Donald, a retired judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Philip Pro, a retired federal judge from the District of Nevada.Amrit Singh, a professor of professional practice and faculty director of the Rule of Law Lab at New York University School of Law. Jeremy Fogel (moderator), executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a retired federal judge from the Northern District of California.Richard Jolly (moderator), professor at Southwestern Law School and senior fellow at the Civil Justice Research Initiative.Watch a video of the discussion.Listen to the episode and read the transcript on UC Berkeley News (news.berkeley.edu/podcasts/berkeley-talks).Music by HoliznaCC0.Photo via Unsplash. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of our Litigation Lens podcast series, shareholders Michael Nail (Greenville) and Heather Ptasznik (Detroit (Metro)) discuss a recent Sixth Circuit decision affirming a jury verdict for an employee on ADA disability discrimination and retaliation claims based on night blindness. The speakers review how this ruling reinforces that night blindness can qualify as an ADA-protected disability, with practical takeaways for employers on timing, documentation, and recognizing accommodation requests.

DOCKET ALERTS:We bid a fond goodbye to Ed Martin … well, fond-ish.Liam Ramos, the little boy kidnapped by ICE in Minneapolis along with his father is back home after a judge in Texas granted his habeas petition. Read the scathing order here.Judge Jia Cobb re-imposed a temporary restraining order barring DHS from excluding legislators from immigrant detention facilities. Two immigrant rights groups challenged ICE's homebrew arrest warrants.The Trump administration finally got that perp walk of Don Lemon. Two weeks ago, a federal magistrate refused to issue an arrest warrant for Lemon, Minnesota journalist Georgia Fort, and three others who were present at the MLK Day protest at a church whose pastor David Easterbrook is an ICE supervisor. Now a grand jury has indicted all eight of the DOJ's original targets.Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit dropkicked the DOJ's judicial ethics complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court in DC. The complaint is based on leaked notes from a closed judicial conference in March, which Law and Chaos is suing to kick loose under FOIA. The Signalgate administration says it has no idea how this judicial record wound up on its servers. Liz and Andrew sound off on Chief Justice Roberts forcing SCOTUS employees to sign NDAs.Donald Trump sues the IRS — it's like suing himself, but you get to foot the bill.And we ponder whether Trump can legally burn down the Kennedy Center Make the Kennedy Center Great Again.Plus for subscribers: Andrew's got a deep dive into the Death on the High Seas Act and the lawsuit filed by survivors of two men murdered in the Caribbean boat strikes.Justice Dept. demotes Ed Martin, stripping Trump ally of most authorityhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/02/02/ed-martin-demoted-justice-departmentLiam Ramos Habeas Orderhttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492.9.0_3.pdfTRO Enjoining DHS from Excluding Legislators From Immigration Facilitieshttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200.52.0.pdfThe Perp Walk Is The Pointhttps://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/the-perp-walk-is-the-pointUS v. Armstrong [Don Lemon Indictment]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231103/gov.uscourts.mnd.231103.39.0_1.pdfDOJ Attacks Judge, Claims Judicial Immunity For Itselfhttps://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/doj-attacks-judge-using-leaked-docJudge Sutton Dismissed DOJ Complaint Re Judge Boasberghttps://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/judicial_complaints/files/2025/06-25-90173(Chad.MO.pdfRes Ipsa Media v. DOJ [L&C FOIA suit]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71236135/res-ipsa-media-llc-v-department-of-justiceHow the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretivehttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/us/supreme-court-nondisclosure-agreements.htmlTrump v. IRShttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.1.0_4.pdfBoat Strike Complainthttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294916/gov.uscourts.mad.294916.1.0_1.pdfShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) the Court is set to consider “whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.”.The case kicked off in 2022 when two Republican party committees brought suit against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They contended the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their capacity to coordinate campaign advertising with candidates, and that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) which had upheld the restrictions as constitutional, had been made unsound by developments in law, facts, and precedent in the intervening time.As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc which upheld FECA. The Supreme Court granted cert. and Oral Argument is set to be heard on December 9, 2025.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Defending Education brought a suit challenging Olentangy Local School District policies related to student speech. These policies, among other things, barred students from using pronouns that match a person's biological sex if that individual identified with different pronouns. Defending Education challenged the policies, contending they both impermissibly prohibited speech, by not allowing students who believed sex is immutable & therefore personal pronouns cannot be chosen to express that belief as they wished, and compelled speech by forcing students to use pronouns for others that express a perspective with which the students did not agree. The case was filed in the southern district of Ohio, which ruled in favor of the school district, and the Sixth Circuit initially affirmed that decision. The case was then reheard en banc by a 17-judge panel, and on November 6, 2025, the court reversed the judgment 10-7, holding that the policies did violate the First Amendment rights of the affected students. Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring:Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC

NRSC v. FEC | 12/09/25 | Docket #: 24-621 24-621 NRSC V. FEC DECISION BELOW: 117 F.4th 389 Order of July 1, 2025: ROMAN MARTINEZ, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. Order of December 5 , 2025 : THE MOTION OF COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IS GRANTED. CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d). In an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, a 10-judge majority of the en banc Sixth Circuit agreed that these so-called "coordinated party expenditure limits" stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. App.10a-15a. It nevertheless upheld them as constitutional, both on their face and as applied to coordinated political advertising ("party coordinated communications"), believing the case to be controlled by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee , 533 U.S. 431 (2001) ( Colorado II ). In doing so, the majority acknowledged that in the 23 years since Colorado II , this Court "has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation," that "tension has emerged between the reasoning of Colorado II and the reasoning of later decisions of the Court," and that relevant facts have "changed, most notably with 2014 amendments" to the limits and "the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees." App.3a-4a, 11a. But it thought "any new assessment of the validity of the limits" remained this Court's "province, not ours." App.14a-15a. The question presented is: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3051

Episode 43: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 9, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of National Republican Senatorial Committee), Sarah M. Harris (on behalf of the federal respondents in support of petitioners), Roman Martinez (Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae defending the law), and Marc Elias (Counsel for Intervenor-Respondents DNC, DSCC, and DCCC).  Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d).  In an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, a 10-judge majority of the en banc Sixth Circuit agreed that these so-called “coordinated party expenditure limits” stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. App.10a-15a. It nevertheless upheld them as constitutional, both on their face and as applied to coordinated political advertising (“party coordinated communications”), believing the case to be controlled by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (Colorado II). In doing so, the majority acknowledged that in the 23 years since Colorado II, this Court “has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation,” that “tension has emerged between the reasoning of Colorado II and the reasoning of later decisions of the Court,” and that relevant facts have “changed, most notably with 2014 amendments” to the limits and “the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees.” App.3a-4a, 11a. But it thought “any new assessment of the validity of the limits” remained the Supreme Court's “province, not ours.” App.14a-15a.  The question presented is:  Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. Resources:   Brief for the Petitioners NRSC Brief for the Respondents FEC Supreme Court Docket Sixth Circuit Oral Argument Audio Institute for Free Speech SCOTUS Amicus Brief Campaign Regulations Are Unconstitutional, by Bradley A. Smith, The Wall Street Journal The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

This week, we're covering new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on reporting tips and overtime, a widened circuit split on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) authority, and a delayed Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee vote on an NLRB nominee. No Fines for Incorrect Reporting of Tips and Overtime in 2025 New guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS states that penalties will not be assessed for employers who fail to meet the new reporting requirements for cash tips and overtime compensation in 2025. Sixth Circuit Widens Circuit Split on NLRB Authority The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has joined the Third and Fifth Circuits in ruling that the NLRB's expanded "make whole" remedies are inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act. NLRB Nomination Stalls A Senate HELP committee vote on NLRB nominee Scott Mayer, which was scheduled for November 19, was canceled. Confirmation of the nominee would restore the Board's quorum. - Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw414 Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm that focuses its resources on health care, life sciences, and workforce management solutions, coupled with powerful litigation strategies. This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Armistice DayOn November 11, 1918, World War I came to an end with the signing of the Armistice between the Allies and Germany. While not a legal instrument in the treaty sense, the armistice was a binding agreement that had massive legal and geopolitical ramifications. Its terms, including a cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of German forces, and surrender of military equipment, were enforced by military and diplomatic means, laying the groundwork for the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The legal aftermath of the war led to the creation of new nation-states, redrawn borders, and the first formal attempt at international governance through the League of Nations.November 11 would later be recognized in the United States as Veterans Day, originally commemorated as Armistice Day, reflecting the legal shift from honoring only WWI veterans to recognizing all who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. The legal transition occurred in 1954 when President Eisenhower signed legislation formally renaming the holiday. The legal framework surrounding veterans' benefits also expanded post-WWI, with landmark legislation like the GI Bill of Rights in 1944 and its subsequent reauthorizations, shaping how the U.S. compensates military service.Internationally, the armistice also contributed to legal debates over war guilt and reparations, particularly with Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles—the so-called “War Guilt Clause”—which placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany and its allies. That clause became a flashpoint in both legal and political discussions and was later cited by Germany as a grievance contributing to the rise of Nazism and WWII.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis had argued that her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion shielded her from liability, but lower courts rejected that defense, awarding damages and attorneys' fees exceeding $360,000 to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore. The Sixth Circuit found that Davis's actions constituted state action, not protected private conduct, and that she could not invoke her own constitutional rights to infringe on the rights of others while acting in an official capacity.Davis had also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, arguing it rested on the same substantive due process doctrine as Roe v. Wade, which the Court overturned in 2022. However, the justices declined to take up that issue, just as they had in 2020. The Court's refusal to revisit Obergefell signals a reluctance, at least for now, to reexamine established rights to same-sex marriage, even as the bench remains deeply conservative.US Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same-sex marriage right | ReutersSenior U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf, appointed by President Reagan in 1985, announced his resignation in order to publicly oppose what he describes as President Donald Trump's abuse of legal authority. In an article for The Atlantic, Wolf accused Trump of weaponizing the law against political enemies while shielding allies, a pattern he claims contradicts the principles he upheld over five decades in the Justice Department and on the bench. Wolf cited Trump's direction to Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict political opponents, including New York AG Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, as especially troubling.Wolf expressed frustration over the ethical constraints on judges that prevent them from speaking out publicly, saying he could no longer remain silent as Trump undermined the rule of law and dismantled oversight mechanisms such as inspectors general and the FBI's public-corruption unit. His resignation comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, underscored by combative rhetoric at a recent Federalist Society event. Wolf, who had previously criticized the handling of ethics complaints against Justice Clarence Thomas, said he now plans to support litigation and advocacy efforts to protect democratic norms and defend judges unable to speak for themselves.Reagan Judge Says He Quit Bench to Speak Out Against TrumpThe Trump administration has significantly shortened the time between publicly announcing judicial nominees and holding their Senate confirmation hearings, in some cases to as little as two days—far less than the typical 28-day window used by past administrations. While the Senate Judiciary Committee still adheres to its rule requiring 28 days between receiving nominee questionnaires and hearings, the White House now delays public disclosure until much later in the process, often after nominees have cleared internal background checks. Critics argue this reduces transparency and limits public scrutiny of lifetime judicial appointments, while supporters claim the process is efficient and appropriate given the nominees' qualifications.Some nominees, like Louisiana district court picks William Crain and Alexander Van Hook, received swift hearings with little controversy, though others, like appellate nominee Emil Bove, drew public concern during the brief window between announcement and hearing. Observers also criticized the administration's choice to reveal nominees via Trump's Truth Social account, often late at night, bypassing traditional press channels. Legal experts suggest this shift reflects a strategic move to minimize opposition and accelerate confirmations, but it has alarmed advocacy groups who say it undermines public trust and democratic norms.Trump Changes How Judicial Nominees Get Publicly Revealed 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

With less than one more before the Supreme Court's oral argument in one of the most explosive cases of this term, Trump v. Slaughter, you're encouraged to join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for a discussion of this important case over whether the President remove any Senate-confirmed commissioner of an agency he no longer wishes to have serve in that federal agency. The constitutional question in the case concerns statutory removal protections for the Federal Trade Commission—previously upheld in the Court's landmark decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States—and whether a federal court may prevent removal of a commissioner from public office. The stakes for this case are enormous for all three branches of the government, foremost though the executive. Is the power to remove an executive branch agency's commissioner vested solely in the President, as it is under what's known as the theory of the unitary executive? Or can Congress place conditions on removal that prevent such exercise of the executive's authority?Joining us to preview the oral argument is Mark Chenoweth of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Mark is NCLA's President and Chief Legal Officer, and along with Margot Cleveland and Professor Philip Hamburger, the co-authors of an amicus brief in the case.Mark served as the first chief of staff to Congressman Mike Pompeo, as legal counsel to Commissioner Anne Northup at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, as an attorney advisor in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice, and as a law clerk to the Hon. Danny J. Boggs on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.Mark has worked in several different roles in the private sector as well. He began his legal career in D.C. as a regulatory associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. He then returned to his home state of Kansas to serve as in-house counsel for Koch Industries. Most recently he spent over four years as general counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation.Learn more about NCLA.

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | 11/04/25 | Docket #: 24-808 24-808 CONEY ISLAND AUTO PARTS, INC. V. BURTON DECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 438 CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Well-settled legal principles dictate that a judgment entered in the absence of personal jurisdiction is void. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) authorizes federal courts to vacate a judgment when it is void. A motion seeking vacatur, however, "must be made within a reasonable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Each of the United States Courts of Appeals other than the Sixth Circuit holds that there is effectively no time limit for moving to vacate a judgment, notwithstanding Rule 60(c)(1)'s "reasonable time" requirement, when the judgment is obtained in the absence of personal jurisdiction. The common thinking among these circuits is that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is the sole outlier. In this case, it held that Rule 60(c)(1) governs the timing of a motion seeking vacatur of a void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). The question presented is: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-5881

This Day in Legal History: Elk v. WilkinsOn November 3, 1884, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Elk v. Wilkins, ruling that Native Americans were not automatically U.S. citizens under the Constitution. The case involved John Elk, a Native American who had left his tribal affiliation and tried to register to vote in Omaha, Nebraska. He argued that by assimilating into American society and residing outside his tribe, he had placed himself under U.S. jurisdiction and thus should be granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Court disagreed, holding that Native Americans born into tribal nations were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the sense required by the 14th Amendment unless naturalized through an act of Congress.This decision legally excluded Native Americans from the rights and protections afforded to other Americans, including the right to vote and equal protection under the law. It reinforced a system in which Native identity and U.S. citizenship were treated as mutually exclusive. While the Dawes Act of 1887 later allowed certain Native Americans to obtain citizenship by accepting land allotments and assimilating, this was a piecemeal and coercive process. True universal birthright citizenship for Native Americans was not granted until 1924, with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act, which declared all Native Americans born in the U.S. to be citizens.The Elk decision underscores the deep contradictions in American legal history regarding sovereignty, race, and citizenship, and it illustrates how constitutional protections were unequally applied. It remains a key moment in understanding the legal marginalization of Indigenous peoples in the United States.Daniel Ginzburg, a solo practitioner based in New Jersey, will argue his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, going up against renowned litigator Lisa Blatt. Ginzburg, who runs his practice with just a laptop and Dropbox, turned down offers from major law firms—including Blatt's own—to retain control over the case and seize the rare opportunity to appear before the justices. His case centers on a procedural issue: whether a default judgment entered against his client, Coney Island Auto Parts, by a Tennessee bankruptcy court should be vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction.The underlying dispute involves a $48,696 debt related to bankruptcy proceedings filed by Vista-Pro Automotive in 2014. Ginzburg argues that the judgment was void from the start, but the Sixth Circuit denied relief, ruling his client's challenge came too late—a position that conflicts with other federal appellate courts. This circuit split helped pave the way for Supreme Court review.Ginzburg, who emigrated from the former Soviet Union and graduated from St. John's School of Law, took the case on a contingency basis after years of litigation. Despite the steep odds and high-profile opposition, he has spent months preparing, including mock arguments with law professors. Blatt, representing the bankruptcy trustee, argues that Ginzburg's client had years to object and failed to act in time.Ginzburg remains focused on the procedural integrity of the system, saying his motivation is simple: “I wanted to win.” Yet even if successful, the case could be remanded for further proceedings in bankruptcy court.NJ Solo Practitioner to Face Lisa Blatt in Supreme Court DebutFBI Director Kash Patel forced out a senior official, Steven Palmer, who oversaw the bureau's aviation operations, shortly after online scrutiny emerged over Patel's use of an FBI jet to attend a personal event. Patel's trip to State College, Pennsylvania—where his girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins, performed the national anthem—was revealed through publicly accessible flight data and Patel's own social media posts. Following the media attention, Palmer, a 27-year FBI veteran and acting head of the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), was told to resign or be fired. Though FBI directors are required to use government aircraft for security reasons, the optics of Patel's travel sparked criticism, especially given his past remarks condemning similar behavior by former directors.Palmer's firing marks the third leadership ouster within CIRG under Patel, reinforcing a pattern of high-level dismissals since his appointment. His predecessor, Brian Driscoll, is among a group of former officials suing the administration for allegedly retaliatory terminations tied to perceived political disloyalty. The FBI's leadership page now lists Devin Kowalski, previously head of the San Juan office, as the new CIRG chief—a change that was reportedly planned before the jet controversy. Patel's spokesman defended the director's travel practices as compliant and cost-conscious, dismissing criticism as politically motivated.FBI Ousts Leader as Patel Fumes Over Attention to Agency Jet UseA federal judge in Rhode Island has ordered the Trump administration to immediately resume food assistance payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), despite an ongoing government shutdown. Judge John J. McConnell ruled that full benefits must be paid by Monday or, at the very least, partial payments must begin by Wednesday. He criticized the administration's refusal to use $5.25 billion in congressionally approved contingency funds, calling the decision arbitrary and emphasizing the irreparable harm caused by payment delays to millions of low-income Americans.The administration had claimed it lacked authority to distribute the funds during the shutdown, which began on October 1, but McConnell rejected this argument. He noted that Trump himself had previously issued guidance during his first term stating that contingency funds could be used in such scenarios. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he does not want Americans to go hungry and directed his lawyers to seek clarity on funding SNAP legally, which the judge cited approvingly in his order.In addition to the Rhode Island case, another federal judge in Boston ruled similarly in a separate lawsuit brought by 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, saying the administration was wrong to assert it couldn't use contingency funds. The USDA previously warned it may not have enough money to cover November benefits, which cost up to $9 billion monthly. Judge McConnell suggested the agency could also tap into a separate $23 billion fund if needed.Trump administration must pay food aid benefits within days, judge says | 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

Administrative Law: May FINRA be given disciplinary powers over broker-dealers? - Argued: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 7:32:13 EDT

Civil Rights: May a State ban "conversion therapy"? - Argued: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:45:6 EDT

Federalism: May States impose licensing requirements on horse race gambling businesses operating within the State? - Argued: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:43:47 EDT

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showLetitia James has been indicted, as President Trump's retribution campaign continues. (So has John Bolton, but that happened after we recorded.) While the Bolton indictment has a forbidding, professional feel, the James indictment does not, and is likely to be vulnerable to some of the same attacks James Comey is raising against his own indictment. But then, is the point even to get a conviction? Plus: another US Attorney has been forced out for insufficient eagerness to investigate the president's enemies, and the Wall Street Journal reports that Ghislaine Maxwell's arrival to the Club Fed in Texas has made life less pleasant for the other inmates there.For paying subscribers, we look at Drake's humiliating loss in his defamation lawsuit against his own record label, in which a federal judge had to explain to him how a rap battle works; a discussion of a split decision by a panel in the Sixth Circuit, saying schools may prohibit clothing with implied vulgarities (such as two students' sweatshirts that declared “Let's Go Brandon"); ICE enforcing a little-known law that green card holders must actually carry their green cards (apparently just with fines, so far); and the State Department bragging that it's revoking visas held by non-citizens who said mean things about Charlie Kirk.There's also a preview of Josh's new podcast Central Air, a weekly politics chat from the center.

Valerie Kloosterman, a devout Christian and third-generation healthcare professional, served her community as a Physician Assistant for 17 years. In 2021, University of Michigan Health introduced mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training that required participants to affirm statements Kloosterman believed conflicted with her religious convictions and medical judgment. After she requested a religious accommodation, hospital officials denied her request, criticized her beliefs, and ultimately terminated her employment.Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court.Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations.Featuring:Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy(Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ , Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Bryce Goodwyn (@BryceGoodwyn) return after a brief hiatus to tackle three major legal stories that unfolded while they were away.The trio kicks off with an analysis of the Jimmy Kimmel temporary suspension from ABC, the First Amendment implications, and his eventual return to the air. Dan walks through the framework around free speech in media, while Bryce draws parallels to landmark constitutional cases, emphasizing how these precedents protect expression even when controversial.Next, Mike breaks down the Sauce Gardner defamation case, where the Jets cornerback was sued by a New Jersey woman over a Twitter exchange involving OnlyFans allegations. The court ultimately dismissed the case under New Jersey's new anti-SLAP protections, awarding Gardner over $50,000 in attorney's fees. The trio debates whether the case was truly frivolous and discusses the broader implications for athlete-fan interactions on social media.Finally, Bryce provides an update on Diego Pavia's ongoing eligibility battle with the NCAA. The Vanderbilt quarterback's antitrust challenge to the five-year eligibility rule recently reached the Sixth Circuit, with arguments focusing on whether junior college years should count toward eligibility limits. Dan and Bryce express concerns about the blurring lines between college and professional sports, questioning where reasonable limits should be drawn.The episode wraps with "What to Watch For" covering professional players entering college athletics and international student-athletes' NIL rights. Plus, of course, a Dan Lust bet of the week!Let us know your thoughts!***Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team.As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠), Bryce Goodwyn (⁠@BryceGoodwyn⁠) Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ , Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Bryce Goodwyn (@BryceGoodwyn) return after a brief hiatus to tackle three major legal stories that unfolded while they were away.The trio kicks off with an analysis of the Jimmy Kimmel temporary suspension from ABC, the First Amendment implications, and his eventual return to the air. Dan walks through the framework around free speech in media, while Bryce draws parallels to landmark constitutional cases, emphasizing how these precedents protect expression even when controversial.Next, Mike breaks down the Sauce Gardner defamation case, where the Jets cornerback was sued by a New Jersey woman over a Twitter exchange involving OnlyFans allegations. The court ultimately dismissed the case under New Jersey's new anti-SLAP protections, awarding Gardner over $50,000 in attorney's fees. The trio debates whether the case was truly frivolous and discusses the broader implications for athlete-fan interactions on social media.Finally, Bryce provides an update on Diego Pavia's ongoing eligibility battle with the NCAA. The Vanderbilt quarterback's antitrust challenge to the five-year eligibility rule recently reached the Sixth Circuit, with arguments focusing on whether junior college years should count toward eligibility limits. Dan and Bryce express concerns about the blurring lines between college and professional sports, questioning where reasonable limits should be drawn.The episode wraps with "What to Watch For" covering professional players entering college athletics and international student-athletes' NIL rights. Plus, of course, a Dan Lust bet of the week!Let us know your thoughts!***Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team.As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠), Bryce Goodwyn (⁠@BryceGoodwyn⁠) Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email

On this episode of registry matters… we dig into the Eleventh Circuit's rare en banc turn on a parent's fundamental custody right—and what it suggests about judicial motives and possible hypocrisy; unpack why admitting conduct to probation officers or treatment providers can backfire, especially when it predates supervision; examine a Sixth Circuit clash over who...

IRS releases guidance on changes in research and experimental expenditures, Sixth Circuit agrees with Second and Third Circuits on equitable relief for late Tax Court petitions in deficiency cases and more.

The largest law firms in the country are fiercely competitive, so it's notable when nearly 40 of them agree to sign on to a legal brief. That's what happened in an appellate case that could have eroded the attorney-client privilege—and the firms' lucrative white collar defense practices. They breathed a collective sigh of relief earlier this month when the Sixth Circuit overturned a lower court ruling that would have forced FirstEnergy to turn over to its shareholders the results of internal investigations. The company hired Jones Day and Squire Patton Boggs to conduct the probes in response to a bribery scandal and later argued that the work was shielded by attorney-client privilege. On today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits, reporter Roy Strom explains what happened in this case and why it represented such a threat to Big Law. He also gets into the reasons lawyers' hourly rates for white collar defense work can climb so high. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Episode 32: OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al.OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Raymond M. Kethledge, Eric E. Murphy, and Andre B. Mathis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 23, 2025. Argued by Elisabeth C. Frost (on behalf of OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership), Mathura Jaya Sridharan (on behalf of Dave Yost, et al.), and Jason Walta (for Amicus Ohio Education Association).Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief):It is well established that lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) are entitled to First Amendment protection, including for their political speech. And the Supreme Court has long held that spending to promote or oppose direct democracy measures is core First Amendment expression. Nevertheless, [in 2024], Ohio enacted Ohio Revised Code § 3517.121 (“Section 121”), making it a crime for any noncitizen—including LPRs—to engage in any political spending.Section 121's broad prohibitions reach every conceivable type of spending, from direct contributions to independent expenditures, whether made “directly or indirectly through any person or entity,” and apply even to spending “in support of or opposition to a statewide ballot issue or question, regardless of whether the ballot issue or question has yet been certified to appear on the ballot.” Id. § 3517.121(B)(2). At the same time, Section 121 invites political weaponization, mandating that the Attorney General investigate any alleged violation made by any Ohio elector. Id. § 3517.121(G)(2)(a). The law's sheer breadth, lack of tailoring, and threat of unrestrained investigations threaten and will chill the core First Amendment activity of not just noncitizens, but also citizens and domestic organizations who take donations from noncitizens or involve noncitizen decisionmakers….In support, Ohio relies overwhelmingly on a reading of Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 n.3 (D.D.C. 2011), aff'd, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012), that is at odds with the decision itself. Bluman held that Congress may constitutionally prohibit foreign citizens other than LPRs from directly contributing to candidates or to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate, but in writing for that court, then-Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly cautioned that restrictions on political spending by LPRs or for issue advocacy would raise substantial constitutional questions. See, e.g., id. at 292 (making explicit court was not deciding whether Congress could extend ban to LPRs or restrict noncitizens engaging in “issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy,” warning its holding “should not be read to support such bans”). [Emphasis in original.]The Bluman court was right to be concerned—and this Court should be, too, now that Ohio has enacted such a ban….Resources:CourtListener docket page for OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al.Ohio Revised Code § 3517.121 (“Section 121”)Brief of Appellants – Cross Appellees (First Brief) [Ohio]Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief) [OPAWL]The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Delcianna J. Winders is an associate professor of law and Director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School. Professor Winders previously taught at Lewis & Clark Law School, where she directed the world's first law school clinic dedicated to farmed animal advocacy. She served as Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at the PETA Foundation, was the first Academic Fellow of the Harvard Animal Law & Policy Program, and was a visiting scholar at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. Her primary interests are in animal law and administrative law. She has also taught animal law at Tulane University School of Law and Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. Her work has appeared in the Denver Law Review, Florida State Law Review, Ohio State Law Journal, NYU Law Review, and the Animal Law Review. Winders has also published extensively in the popular press, including The Hill, National Geographic, Newsweek, New York Daily News, Salon, U.S.A. Today, and numerous other outlets. Winders received her BA in Legal Studies with highest honors from the University California at Santa Cruz, where she was named a Regents' Scholar and received the Dean's Award for outstanding achievement in Social Sciences, and her JD from NYU School of Law, where she was awarded the Vanderbilt Medal for outstanding contributions to the law school, named as a Robert McKay Scholar, and served as the Senior Notes Editor of the NYU Law Review. Following law school, Winders clerked for the Hon. Martha Craig Daughtrey on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and practiced animal law in a variety of settings.     Links mentioned in the podcast: For information about the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, including degree programs and classes,(including online classes and short summer courses, which are open to auditors quite affordably): vermontlaw.edu/animallaw Winders' chapter Farmed Animal Welfare (United States), which examines recent and emergent developments around legal oversight of on-farm welfare, confinement bans, slaughter regulation (and deregulation), humanewashing, and welfare on certified organic farms and concludes with a call for establishment of an animal protection agency, is available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5342182. The chapter is in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook on Global Animal Law, which will be available in full online for free once published next year. Winders' encyclopedia entry, Legal Standing – Access to Court in the US, is in the Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Animal Law, which is forthcoming this month at https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/elgar-concise-encyclopedia-of-animal-law-9781803923666.html. Listeners can use the code ANML35 for a 35% discount. Winders' other animal law scholarship is available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2433383.     Have you Will Potter‘s book yet called LITTLE RED BARNS, Hiding the Truth, from Farm to Fable Share? Get it now!

This Day in Legal History: Alien ActOn June 25, 1798, the United States Congress passed the Alien Act, one of the four laws collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Signed into law by President John Adams, the Alien Act authorized the president to order the deportation of any non-citizen deemed "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." This law emerged during a time of heightened political tension and fear of foreign influence, particularly as hostilities with France escalated during the Quasi-War. The Federalist-controlled government promoted the act as a necessary measure to protect national security, but it quickly drew criticism from the rival Democratic-Republican Party.Critics argued the act violated fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties, granting the executive branch unchecked power over immigration and expulsion. The law did not require a criminal conviction or even a hearing, allowing deportation based solely on presidential discretion. Although the Alien Act had a two-year sunset clause and was never directly enforced through mass deportations, its passage contributed to a growing divide between Federalists and Jeffersonians.The broader set of Alien and Sedition Acts also targeted political dissent, with the Sedition Act criminalizing speech critical of the government. These laws played a central role in the 1800 presidential election, fueling opposition that ultimately helped Thomas Jefferson defeat John Adams. In the long run, the Alien Act became emblematic of federal overreach and was widely viewed as an overreaction to perceived threats. It underscored early challenges in balancing national security with individual rights and helped lay the groundwork for later debates on immigration and executive authority.A decade after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a Christian legal group is preparing to challenge the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The move comes amid broader conservative momentum, including a Southern Baptist Convention resolution calling for the ruling's repeal and a recent Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Despite these developments, legal experts, including conservatives, see little chance the Court will take up the challenge. John Bursch, a former Obergefell litigator, noted that overturning such a major precedent typically requires both time and significant public advocacy—Roe v. Wade, for instance, remained in force for nearly 50 years before being overturned in Dobbs.Nonetheless, Liberty Counsel is moving forward with a Supreme Court appeal on behalf of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple just days after Obergefell. Davis was found liable for $100,000 in emotional distress damages, and the group will argue that her actions were protected by the First Amendment. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, stating that Davis acted as a public official and thus could not claim constitutional protection for her refusal. Liberty Counsel also intends to ask the Court to reconsider the core ruling in Obergefell, comparing their strategy to how Dobbs upended abortion rights.Legal observers remain skeptical. The Supreme Court already declined to hear Davis's earlier appeal, and while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed concerns about the scope of Obergefell, they said Davis had not properly raised the issue in lower courts. That procedural misstep could again doom her case. Meanwhile, political efforts are mounting in conservative states, with resolutions and bills promoting "covenant marriage" that excludes same-sex couples. Still, critics such as the ACLU see these moves as largely symbolic and lacking real legal traction.Same-Sex Marriage Challenge Seen as Long Shot at Supreme CourtA new ruling in the case Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC has provided the first major legal decision on whether training generative AI models qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law. District Judge William Alsup concluded that using legitimately purchased books to train AI models like Anthropic's Claude counts as transformative fair use, as long as the books are bought for training and then destroyed afterward. This decision gives AI developers a tentative legal framework, or “roadmap,” for creating compliant large language models, though the ruling is not without limits. Alsup allowed separate claims involving pirated training materials to proceed to trial, drawing a sharp line between lawful acquisition and copyright infringement.The court's ruling highlights the four traditional fair use factors, placing significant weight on the transformative nature of AI training while minimizing the importance of its commercial impact on the original market. Alsup asserted that the use was transformative enough to outweigh concerns over licensing markets, suggesting that AI training doesn't necessarily harm authors' ability to profit from their work. This view diverges from recent interpretations emphasizing market harm, such as the Supreme Court's 2022 Warhol decision. While this reasoning favors developers, it also creates tension with copyright owners, who argue the ruling downplays existing licensing practices.The decision notably distances itself from claims involving pirated materials. Alsup treated the copying and use of pirated books as a separate issue that may still result in substantial liability, including statutory damages. This split decision—approving the use of lawfully acquired materials but scrutinizing pirated content—offers a compromise approach that courts in similar cases might adopt. With multiple lawsuits against OpenAI and Meta pending, Alsup's ruling could influence upcoming decisions, though judges in other districts may interpret the law differently. The opinion suggests that training can be transformative and lawful under certain conditions but reinforces that AI companies must source training data responsibly.Mixed Anthropic Ruling Builds Roadmap for Generative AI Fair UseAnthropic wins key US ruling on AI training in authors' copyright lawsuit | ReutersKilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national previously deported under the Trump administration despite a court order barring his removal, is set to appear in a Nashville court to determine the terms of his release from jail. A U.S. magistrate judge ruled that Abrego could not be detained pending trial, citing insufficient evidence that he poses a danger. Abrego has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiring to smuggle migrants into the U.S., accusations his legal team argues were intended to justify his unlawful deportation. His case has drawn attention as a symbol of the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies and has sparked civil rights concerns.The court noted that even if Abrego is released from criminal custody, immigration authorities may still detain him. The judge questioned the reliability of the government's witnesses, many of whom are convicted smugglers or deportees seeking leniency. Prosecutors allege Abrego transported migrants, including minors, on over 100 trips between Texas and Maryland, often accompanied by his own children to avoid suspicion. However, the court viewed these claims skeptically due to the witnesses' motivations and criminal backgrounds.U.S. officials initially labeled his deportation an “administrative error” and resisted calls to return him, raising further due process concerns. Another judge is investigating whether the administration violated court orders related to his removal. Ultimately, the Justice Department brought Abrego back to face charges, but the judge's recent ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring his constitutional rights are respected.Returned deportee Abrego due in US court over bail conditions | 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

Today on Truth in Politics and Culture the US Supreme Court agrees with the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Skrmetti, that Tennessee can protect minors against mutilating transgender surgery, puberty blockers, and cross hormone treatments. President Trump is weighing the potential consequences of direct military intervention in Iran. I will talk about the pros and cons and give an analysis of intelligence on the state of Iran's nuclear program from IAEA, Israel and the US.

Adminsitrative Law: May members of the NLRB be given for-cause removal protections? - Argued: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 13:11:11 EDT

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man, respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that, because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.” Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Civil Rights: Was the Chili's restaurant chain acting pretextually, when it claimed that a 59 year old manager was fired for not fitting into Chili's "culture"? - Argued: Wed, 28 May 2025 9:57:56 EDT

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will […]

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

Fourth Amendment: May Michigan collect blood samples from newborns? - Argued: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:1:33 EDT

The Destiny's Child of constitutional law (aka Strict Scrutiny) is back on Getting Curious to help us digest and dissect all the wack-a-doodle nonsense that is: Project 2025. Leah Litman & Kate Shaw from the hit podcast Strict Scrutiny sat down with JVN to really parse out the MAGA manifesto. We're talking all about Project 2025's hallmark proposals, the key players involved, as well as tossing in some Supreme Court, Alito/Thomas Updates for good measure. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Our senior producer is Chris McClure. Our editor & engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices