Podcasts about Solicitor general

On today's program: Matt Rice, Solicitor General of Tennessee, celebrates the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to uphold Tennessee's protections for children against mutilating gender procedures. Quena Gonzalez, FRC's Senior Director of Government

President Trump's excellent Solicitor General, Attorney John Sauer, is back at the Supreme Court, fighting against the unelected, black-robed, tyrannical inferior district trial court judges who relentlessly rule that the Article II Executive Branch has no authority unless it is approved by every single federal judge in the nation.This time Sauer is arguing that the Supreme Court should recognize Trump's authority to fire his own employees of the Executive Branch--a position that has never previously been questioned by any Federal court. Join me as we break Sauer's argument down in plain English. Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

On today's Sunday podcast, Isaac talks with Sarah Isgur, Senior Editor at The Dispatch, to discuss the recent acquisition of SCOTUSblog by The Dispatch, the significance of nationwide injunctions, and the ongoing birthright citizenship case. She provides insights into the role of the Solicitor General and the current legal landscape under the Trump administration, emphasizing the importance of congressional power in legal matters. They also talk about the challenges faced by the Supreme Court in addressing complex legal questions and the implications of recent rulings.By the way: If you are not yet a podcast member, and you want to upgrade your newsletter subscription plan to include a podcast membership (which gets you ad-free podcasts, Friday editions, The Sunday podcast, bonus content), you can do that here. That page is a good resource for managing your Tangle subscription (just make sure you are logged in on the website!)Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up! You can also give the gift of a Tangle podcast subscription by clicking here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by Ari Weitzman and Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75 and Jon Lall. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mr Musa Mwenye SC was board chairman for the Anti Corruption Commission. He was also Attorney General and Solicitor General at different points in his life.His wife is the current ZICA president.Watch the video of this episode on our youtube channel, That Zed Podcast.

Mr Musa Mwenye SC was board chairman for the Anti Corruption Commission. He was also Attorney General and Solicitor General at different points in his life.His wife is the current ZICA president.Watch the video of this episode on our youtube channel, That Zed Podcast.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) is now set to be argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case and the broader issues at play, including its implications for the separation of powers.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP--To register, click the link above.

On his tour of the Middle East, Trump lavishes praise on dictators—as they deposit bribes in his pocket. Republicans, in between defending Trump's jet grift, finalize more details of their "big beautiful bill," which, in addition to gutting Medicaid, now aims to cut food assistance, funding for Planned Parenthood, and Biden's clean energy tax credits. The Supreme Court hears arguments on two important, intertwined questions: whether Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional (it's not), and whether federal judges below the Supreme Court can issue nationwide injunctions. Jon and Dan react to the Solicitor General's clueless argument before the justices and new polling on Trump's "inoculation" against corruption attacks, and offer Democrats some advice on how to talk about the GOP's tax cuts. Then Jon sits down with long-time friend of the pod Beto O'Rourke to talk about Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Beto's future in the Lone Star State. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast. 

The Maplehurst Correctional Complex is known as Ontario's deadliest and most overcrowded jail. In recent weeks, it's come under increased scrutiny after video footage from 2023 was released showing inmates facing collective punishment from guards in an incident one judge called a "gross display of power." Is Maplehurst an aberration or a sign of system-wide challenges? What kind of action could and should the province take? To discuss, we're joined by Demar Kemar Hewitt Executive director and general counsel at the Black Legal Action Centre Lee Chapelle Former inmate and president of Canadian Prison Consulting Brendan Kennedy Reporter on the Toronto Star's investigative team and Andrea Monteiro Founder of Ethical Correctional Consulting Inc., former director of corrections in the Yukon, and former manager of the Independent Review of Ontario Corrections See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kannon Shanmugam is a partner at the law firm Paul Weiss and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, representing clients such as Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Meta, Warner Music, Bank of America, Coinbase, and the NFL, among others. Kannon has also argued more than 150 appeals in courts across the country, including all 13 federal courts of appeals. A longtime Supreme Court reporter said that Kannon has “perhaps the most eloquent and elegant manner … that I've ever seen in my 40 years covering the Court." Legal 500 called Kannon "a brilliant lawyer and tactician, with impeccable judgment and an optimal moral compass." It added, “you won't find a more talented, sophisticated, compelling lawyer—and he matches that with his overall humility and kind nature.” Before entering private practice, Kannon served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice and as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Kannon earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard, was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, and then returned to Harvard for his Law degree. In this episode we discuss the following: As Judge Sack told Kannon, all you can do in a career is stand by the hoop and hope that somebody passes you the ball. There's no substitute for hard work. At the top levels, everyone has great credentials. But what differentiates the very best people is they put in the work, in a profession where there are no shortcuts. Surround yourself with great people, including great mentors. But not just older people. Kannon devoted a lot of time to finding the most talented young attorneys who were driven, smart, and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm is one of the most important things Kannon looks for when identifying talented people: enthusiasm to work, enthusiasm to grow, and enthusiasm to learn. If you love what you do, it's easy to get out of bed in the morning and keep doing it. Connect on Social Media: X: https://twitter.com/nate_meikle LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/natemeikle/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nate_meikle/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@nate.meikle  

Steve welcomes constitutional attorney and former Solicitor General of the United States Paul Clement to discuss the challenging issues faced today by the Supreme Court of the United States. SUPPORT US ON AMAZON – CLICK HERE [...]

Steve welcomes constitutional attorney and former Solicitor General of the United States Paul Clement to discuss the challenging issues faced today by the Supreme Court of the United States. SUPPORT US ON AMAZON – CLICK HERE [...]

Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorney John Sauer, who is now the Solicitor General at the Department of Justice, filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to reverse itself and lift the block on further deportations of Venezuelan immigrants. What is both interesting and telling is that Sauer said nothing about the midnight run ICE made with busloads of detainees headed for a Texas airport as emergency litigation was underway in court.Glenn analyzes what was said - and what was omitted - from Sauer's new Supreme Court filing.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorney John Sauer, who is now the Solicitor General at the Department of Justice, filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to reverse itself and lift the block on further deportations of Venezuelan immigrants. What is both interesting and telling is that Sauer said nothing about the midnight run ICE made with busloads of detainees headed for a Texas airport as emergency litigation was underway in court.Glenn analyzes what was said - and what was omitted - from Sauer's new Supreme Court filing.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In episode four of NAWL's Bridging Divides series, NAWL's Executive Director, Karen Richardson, engages in a compelling conversation with Anne Li of Crowell & Moring LLP and Ella Spottswood of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. They discuss their recent victory in a significant reproductive rights case in Missouri. Listen as our guests share their firsthand experiences and insights from working on the case, and explore the potential nationwide impact on reproductive rights. Tune in to learn more about the case and find out how you can support the organizations making a difference. Get involved with Planned Parenthood.If you are interested in partnering with Planned Parenthood as pro bono counsel, please reach out to Cecilia DosSantos, cecilia.dossantos@ppfa.org. Eleanor (Ella) Spottswood is a senior staff attorney in the litigation department at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, where she advocates to protect and expand reproductive freedoms nationwide. She recently won a preliminary injunction that allowed abortion access to resume in Missouri for the first time since Dobbs. Prior to working for Planned Parenthood, Ms. Spottswood served as the Solicitor General for Vermont, focusing on appeals and constitutional litigation. She also served for six years as the Chair of the Vermont Judicial Nominating Board.Ms. Spottswood graduated with high honors from Harvard University and earned her law degree from New York University School of Law, where she served on the board of the Law Review. After law school, she clerked on the Vermont Supreme Court and for Judge Berle Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Anne Li is co-chair of the firm's Life Sciences and Patents groups. She is a first-chair trial lawyer in intellectual property who focuses on biotech, pharma, life sciences, and medical device industries. She has successfully represented clients using outside-the-box strategies, both in and out of the courtroom. Her goal is always to reach a good business resolution, but when that is not possible, she zealously uses litigation as a tool to get the best outcome for her clients. She represents clients whose groundbreaking products and services raise complex legal questions at the nexus of collaborators and competitors, including those times when one shifts to the other. She has successfully represented companies in bet-the-company litigations, often scoring key wins long before trial, resulting in favorable settlements. Companies rely on Anne to help them navigate the intersection of intellectual property and business because she provides in-house counsel with patent, unfair competition, and trade secret advice that is practical and actionable. She takes time to learn a client's business—from biotech startups to multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and everything in between—so she can help them develop bespoke strategies that work for their unique situations. Clients also appreciate Anne's ability to match legal strategies with their risk tolerance and business objectives. Her approach is informed by her commitment to developing long-standing relationships with in-house counsel and her knowledge of the industry and related technologies. Furthering Anne's commitment to creating a strong and wide-reaching network across industries and the bar, Anne serves on the Executive Committee of the William C. Conner Inn of Court and is active in the NY Intellectual Property Law Association. She is also a member of Crowell's Pro Bono Committee. 

In a remarkable turn of events, as Trump's ICE officers filled buses with Venezuelan immigrants and headed toward an airport in Texas, an emergency battle was being waged in court to try to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in more unconstitutional deportations.As the busloads of immigrants reached the airport exit, they turned around and headed back to the detention facility.One of Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorneys, John Sauer; (who is now the U.S. Solicitor General); filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to lift the deportation pause order. Do you think there was any mention or explanation in this new court filing of the midnight run to the airport that was thwarted? Glenn takes on that and other issues surrounding this ongoing violation of the due process clause of the Constitution.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In a remarkable turn of events, as Trump's ICE officers filled buses with Venezuelan immigrants and headed toward an airport in Texas, an emergency battle was being waged in court to try to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in more unconstitutional deportations.As the busloads of immigrants reached the airport exit, they turned around and headed back to the detention facility.One of Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorneys, John Sauer; (who is now the U.S. Solicitor General); filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to lift the deportation pause order. Do you think there was any mention or explanation in this new court filing of the midnight run to the airport that was thwarted? Glenn takes on that and other issues surrounding this ongoing violation of the due process clause of the Constitution.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What does the new administration mean for cryptocurrency regulation and the balance of authority between the SEC and the states? Traditionally, Republican-led SECs and financial regulators have favored federal preemption of state authority. Under the Biden Administration, however, many red states invoked their consumer protection powers to challenge federal agency actions and defend federalism. This panel will explore ongoing state litigation against the SEC over the definition of a security and examine how the evolving federal-state dynamic could shape cryptocurrency regulation.Featuring: Justin Clark, Civil Chief, Kentucky Office of the Attorney GeneralPaul N. Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLCEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralModerator: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Office, Paradigm

Andrew and Mary host this week's episode in front of a live audience at Princeton University, starting with the latest in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case where last Tuesday, Maryland district judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to provide among other things, “butts in seats” to explain their efforts to get him back. Then they describe what led up to the Supreme Court's early Saturday decision temporarily blocking the deportation of more Venezuelan migrants, after a flurry of back and forth between the Solicitor General and the ACLU. And being at Andrew's alma mater, he and Mary hold up the absolute necessity of academic freedom and independence in the wake of Trump's attempts to defund universities who do not comply with his demands. Last up, they touch on the Supreme Court granting argument in the birthright citizenship cases- not on the merits, but on whether a nationwide injunction is appropriate in this instance.Further reading: HERE is Judge Harvie Wilkinson's sharply worded opinion, writing for a 3-judge panel in the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, rejecting the Trump administrations effort to stop a lower court's order that the government facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Solicitor General Keith E. Gammage and Judge Andre Gammage discuss their advocacy for their communities.  Host: Dr. Rashad Richey (@IndisputableTYT) Bullpen guest: Solicitor General Keith E. Gammage and Judge Andre Gammage *** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE  ☞  https://www.youtube.com/IndisputableTYT FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/IndisputableTYT TWITTER  ☞       https://www.twitter.com/IndisputableTYT INSTAGRAM ☞  https://www.instagram.com/IndisputableTYT Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler '74, this year's Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law recipient, praised his fellow federal workers and encouraged law students and lawyers to work for the public good. Kneedler has presented oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court more than 150 times during his 46-year career in the Solicitor General's Office. Dean Leslie Kendrick '06 introduces Kneedler.

In July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to terminate the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case, argued on April 2, asks whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Join this Courthouse Steps webinar as we discuss this case and the oral arguments presented in court.Featuring:Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralModerator: Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom--To register, click the link above.

If values like respecting proper parental authority and discretion, promoting awareness and admiration for American and Western culture, preparing students for constructive and knowledgeable citizenship, and conveying an accurate sense of American history in world context, once again became priorities, as there were in the past, what would K-12 education look like?In this presentation, Professor Amy Wax examined the debate on education to go beyond advocacy for school choice and how expanded school choice policies can produce desirable substantive reforms in K-12 educational practice. Professor Wax addressed these issues in her keynote address at the Liberty & Literacy Forum. Amy Wax's work addresses issues in social welfare law and policy as well as the relationship of the family, the workplace, and labor markets. By bringing to bear her training in biomedical sciences and appellate practice as well as her interest in economic analysis, Wax has developed a uniquely insightful approach to problems in her areas of expertise. Wax has published widely in law journals, addressing liberal theory and welfare work requirements as well as the economics of federal disability laws. Current works in progress include articles on same-sex marriage, disparate impact theory and group demographics, rational choice and family structure, and the law and neuroscience of deprivation.Her most recent book is "Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century" (Hoover Institution Press/Rowman & Littlefield, 2009). Wax has received the A. Leo Levin Award for Excellence in an Introductory Course and the Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence. As an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Wax argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court.

Guest: Brendan Kennedy, investigative reporter at The Star On Dec. 20, 2023 a guard was assaulted by an inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton, Ontario. The inmate was then immediately removed from the facility. Two days later, jail guards in full riot gear carried out a violent, mass strip search of 192 inmates – none of whom were involved in the initial incident -- in a coordinated, collective punishment that spanned 48 hours.  A judge has called it a gross display of power, something that should never happen in this country. However, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, who oversees jails across the province, has remained relatively silent on the matter.  The incident has gone on to impact dozens of criminal cases across the province, as inmates seek to have their charges stayed or sentences reduced – and in some cases have received just that, as a recourse for having their Charter Rights violated. Brendan Kennedy, investigative reporter with The Star, originally broke this story last year and has been doggedly trying to obtain security footage of exactly what went down at Maplehurst over the course of those 48 hours and what that tell us about the state of our jails. PLUS: Hear from Rene Pearle, a former Maplehurst inmate who was there on that fateful day This episode was produced by Julia De Laurentiis Johnston, Sean Pattendon and Paulo Marques.

On this episode of Peachtree Corners Life, host Rico Figliolini speaks with Gwinnett County Solicitor General Lisamarie Bristol about her work addressing the county's growing case volume and implementing new justice initiatives.  Key Takeaways & Highlights:Understanding the Solicitor General's Role – How the office prosecutes misdemeanors, traffic offenses, and quality-of-life cases.4,000-Case Backlog Solution – Strategies to streamline processes and improve case resolution speed.New Legal Resource Website – How Gwinnett residents can access critical legal information and victim advocacy services.Diversion Program Success – Over 1,400 successful cases, providing alternatives to prosecution and preventing repeat offenses.Special Victims Unit – Dedicated to handling sensitive cases like misdemeanor sex crimes and vehicular homicides.Teen Dating Violence & Social Media Risks – How technology is impacting legal cases involving young people.Expanding Access to Legal Support – Partnerships with Mosaic Georgia, PADV, and HIMSA House to assist victims and underserved communities.Justice System Challenges – Addressing mental health, substance abuse, and legislative changes affecting prosecution.Listen in for an insightful conversation on justice, reform, and the future of law enforcement in Gwinnett County!

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025. Argued by Cameron Norris (on behalf of Parents Defending Education); Elliott Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio (on behalf of Ohio and 22 other states as amici curiae); and Jaime Santos (on behalf of the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, et al.).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech's second amicus brief (in support of reversal): While students may freely identify as having genders that do not correspond to their biological sex, other students enjoy the same right to credit their own perceptions of reality—and to speak their minds when addressing their classmates. Students cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that confesses, accommodates, and conforms to an ideology they reject—even if that ideology's adherents are offended by any refusal to agree with them or endorse their viewpoint. Yet that is what the Olentangy school district's speech code does.“Pronouns are political.” Dennis Baron, What's Your Pronoun? 39 (2020). History shows that people have long used pronouns to express messages about society and its structure—often in rebellion against the prevailing ideology. And the same is true today. Choosing to use “preferred” or “non-preferred” pronouns often “advance[s] a viewpoint on gender identity.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509 (6th Cir. 2021). So mandating that students use “preferred” pronouns or none at all elevates one viewpoint while silencing the other. It compels students to adopt the district's ideology on gender identity while at school, and in doing so, “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).Statement of the Issues, from the Brief of Appellant Parents Defending Education:The use of gender-specific pronouns is a “hot issue” that “has produced a passionate political and social debate” across the country. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508-09 (6th Cir. 2021). One side believes that gender is subjective and so people should use others' “preferred pronouns”; the other side believes that sex is immutable and so people should use pronouns that correspond with biological sex. Id. at 498. Like the general public, students have varying views on this important subject, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Yet the Olentangy Local School District has adopted policies that punish speech expressed by one side of the debate—the use of pronouns that are contrary to another student's identity. The district court upheld the Policies as consistent with the First Amendment and denied PDE's preliminary-injunction motion.The issues presented in this appeal are:Whether the District's speech policies likely violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, discriminate based on viewpoint, prohibit speech based on content without evidence of a substantial disruption, or are overbroad.Whether, if PDE is likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria favor issuing a preliminary injunction.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Brief for Appellant Parents Defending EducationBrief for Appellee Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Supplemental En Banc Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Parents Defending EducationInstitute for Free Speech first amicus brief (in support of rehearing en banc)Institute for Free Speech second amicus brief (in support of reversal)

Listen to our episode with Atty. Dino De Leon on the solicitor general's refusal to defend the government in the Supreme Court petition against Duterte's arrest.

 - President Trump participates in a St. Patrick's Day Reception with the Irish PM Michael Martin (from last night)  - Senate Business Meeting: Jayanta Bhattacharya for Director of the National Institutes of Health, and Martin Makary, for Commissioner of Food and Drugs  - Marco Rubio arriving at the G7 Summit in Canada  - Senate Business Meeting: "GENIUS Act of 2025", to curtail the political weaponization of Federal banking agencies by eliminating reputational risk as a component of the supervision of depository institutions.  - Senate Confirmation Hearings: Peter Hoekstra for Ambassador to Canada, George Glass for Ambassador to Japan, and Ronald Johnson for Ambassador to the United Mexican States  - Clips from President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte  - CONTINUING: Senate Confirmation Hearings  - Treasury Secretary Bessent Speaks about Tariffs and Potential Government Shutdown  - Senate Gavels in as Government Shutdown Looms  - President Trump's full bilateral meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte  - CONTINUING: Senate Gavels in as Government Shutdown Looms & Commentary from Ghost  - Commentary from Ashe and Ghost  - Senate Business Meeting: Dean Sauer for Solicitor General, and Harmeet Dhillon and Aaron Reitz for Assistant Attorney General  - Commentary from Ghost

MSNBC's Ari Melber hosts "The Beat" on Wednesday, February 26, and reports on Trump's first cabinet meeting, Trump's pick for Solicitor General, and Elon Musk. Libby Casey, Joe Perticone, and Temidayo Aganga-Williams join.

In today's all-new episode, our hosts Renato Mariotti and Asha Rangappa discuss the conflict of interest surrounding the peculiar case of NYC Mayor Eric Adams, and the larger implications for the entire Department of Justice going forward. Subscribe to our Patreon here, where paid members will get access to exclusive portions of this show. patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia We'll explore the recent legal drama surrounding Mayor Adams and unravel the many complexities of this intriguing case—including the appointment of a special prosecutor, and what this means for judicial impartiality. Renato kicks off the show with a breakdown of the surprising decision by Judge Ho, who appointed Paul Clement as special counsel—despite both the prosecution and defense agreeing to dismiss the case. This decision, echoing a past Supreme Court approach, raises serious questions about the role of the court in situations where both parties agree on a matter. Asha reflects on how this unexpected twist upholds the adversarial nature of the U.S. legal system, comparing it to the Supreme Court's practice of inviting the Solicitor General to argue cases where the government isn't directly involved. Our hosts discuss the possibility that Judge Ho might choose to dismiss the charges with prejudice, eliminating any future DOJ prosecutorial leverage. They also highlight the delicate balance judges must maintain in order to ensure impartiality and protect the court's integrity. We'll also reflect on historical examples of how the members of the judiciary have mobilized against politically motivated decisions in the past. The Eric Adams saga is but one microcosm of Trump's new tumultuous legal landscape, where political loyalty overshadows norms. In an era when court decisions and prosecutorial independence are highly politicized, this episode delivers a vital lesson about the significant legal and political upheaval ahead. In an era where judicial decisions and prosecutorial independence are ever more politicized, this episode is a must-listen for understanding the dynamics shaping our governance and liberty. Be sure to join us next week, as we continue to break down the complex legal issues and headlines that can't be confined to simple soundbites, right here on It's Complicated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Did the B.C NDP miss the mark on safe supply? GUEST: Elenore Sturko, B.C Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, and Critic for Solicitor General and Public Safety Why is False Creek taking too long to be developed? GUEST: Geoff Meggs, former Vancouver City Councillor and former Chief of Staff to Premier John Horgan Maple Scan: The mobile app to help you buy Canadian GUEST: Sasha Ivanov, creator of the Maple Scan app Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 23: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Free Speech Coalition, et al.), Brian H. Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae), and Aaron Nielson, Solicitor General of Texas (on behalf of Ken Paxton). Background on the case, excerpted from the introduction of the Brief for Petitioners: Texas House Bill (H.B.) 1181 imposes requirements on commercial websites “more than one-third of which” are “sexual material harmful to minors”—a term that includes all sexually suggestive content, as might be found in romance novels or R-rated movies. The law requires a covered website to verify the age of every user, typically via government-issued identification. Entities conducting such verification may not “retain” users' “identifying information,” but H.B. 1181 does not prohibit transfer of that information or impose any other protection against disclosure.  And while Texas insists that forcing users to endure chilling online privacy and security risks is necessary to protect minors from harmful sexual content, H.B. 1181 exempts the search engines and social-media platforms that are principal gateways for minors' access to that very content.  Confirming Texas's real aims, H.B. 1181 also requires covered websites to post stigmatizing, unscientific “[w]arnings” that condemn their content as harmful to health. The district court preliminarily enjoined H.B. 1181, finding that the law is subject to strict scrutiny and likely to fail it under this Court's governing precedent.  In particular, the court explained that H.B. 1181's age verification requirement is materially identical to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U.S.C. § 231, which this Court in Ashcroft held was subject to strict scrutiny and likely unconstitutional.  The Fifth Circuit agreed that H.B. 1181 is materially identical to COPA, but a divided panel held that it was not bound by Ashcroft because that decision contains what the majority termed “startling omissions.” The majority concluded that the proper level of scrutiny is instead rational-basis review, as applied in Ginsberg.  To justify its departure from Ashcroft, the majority reasoned that this Court there applied strict scrutiny to COPA only because Attorney General Ashcroft, represented by Solicitor General Olson, erroneously accepted strict scrutiny rather than urging mere rational-basis review in defense of the statute. Question Presented: This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review—rather than strict scrutiny—to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Brief for petitioners Brief in opposition 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

In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland) the Court is set to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)(enacted by Congress in April 2024), as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Put forward as a law focused on national security, PAFACA would require that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. The government contends that TikTok poses a notable national security threat given the data it, as a foreign-owned company, collects on American users and the extent to which it could be used to control information (or disinformation) flow to American users. TikTok, along with several users, on the other hand, challenged the law, contending that while there may be a legitimate government interest in national security, the means employed in this case violate the free speech rights of both TikTok and its American users who use the platform to create content. The DC Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Ginsburg, upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge.The Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024, and oral argument is set for January 10, 2025. Join us for a panel Courthouse Steps program following oral argument.Featuring:Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedomChristian Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana Attorney General's Office(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together

Episode 22: TikTok Inc. V. Merrick Garland TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd.) and Jeffrey Fisher (on behalf of Creator Petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al.), and Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case: Adam Feldman's “The Universe of TikTok v. Garland in a Nutshell” contains an excellent synopsis of relevant facts and procedural history. Question Presented: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for TikTok v. Garland Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on D.C. Circuit version of TikTok v. Garland Brief for petitioners TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd. Brief for petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al. Brief for the respondent 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

Canada's bail system is once again being questioned following the shooting of a police officer in Ontario's capital city last fall where the accused was out on bail at the time. The Ontario government has called on the feds to get tougher on repeat offenders, while advocacy groups have raised concerns over overcrowding in provincial jails. The Agenda invites with experts from across the board to discuss whether our bail system is failing.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Supreme Court case on medical care for transgender youth could have major ramifications – not only for children who have gender dysphoria and their families but also for how other statutes are reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, breaking down key moments in the heated courtroom exchanges, examining the specific constitutional question in this case, and discussing the broader implications of the possible ruling. While the specific question in this case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, religion and religious arguments often loom large in cases that involve sexual orientation or gender identity.  SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The stakes of Skrmetti and the specific question presented For more on the atmosphere surrounding the case, read this piece from Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog: Inside the Supreme Court arguments on transgender care Visit the website of the National Archives for more information on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.    Segment 2 (starting at 07:17): The heated oral arguments The U.S. Supreme Court heard U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. The Supreme Court's website has links to listen to the oral arguments or read a transcript of the arguments. We played four clips from the courtroom: The opening argument of Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (from 00:00:10 in the oral argument) A question and statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 01:41:25 in the oral argument) The opening argument of Matthew Rice, Solicitor General for the state of Tennessee (from at 01:45:26 in the oral argument) An exchange between Matthew Rice and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 02:10:17 in the oral argument) Holly mentioned the Bostock v. Clayton County decision from 2020, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGTBQ rights: What's next for religious liberty?”   Segment 3 (starting 39:57): Thank you to our listeners  Our most-listened to episode in 2024 was episode 21 of season 5, titled “But … is it Christian nationalism?”  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

The Solicitor General says she wants to be clear the Prosecution Guidelines aren't intended to favour Māori. Una Jagose has updated the wording of the guidelines. It follows public backlash to previous advice to prosecutors, suggesting they think carefully about particular decisions when a person is Māori. Jagose told Heather du Plessis Allan the wording was unclear, and she wants no confusion about the intent. She says when you're dealing with an individual, it should be based on their circumstances and background, not whether they're part of a particular group. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Huddle, Infrastructure NZ's Nick Leggett and Wellington Mornings host Nick Mills joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! The Solicitor-General has revised her prosecution guidelines - saying people misunderstood what she meant when she told prosecutors to 'think carefully' before charging a person who is Māori. Do we agree with this move? 24 hours on from the Government's infamous ferry announcement - what do we think? Wellington City Council is in damage-control mode after the latest draft budget proposed a 15.9 percent rates rise for the next financial year. Mayor Tory Whanau says she wants to bring that down - does this seem believable? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Solicitor-General's spoken out over public pressure to change the prosecution guidelines. Una Jagose had advised prosecutors to think carefully about particular decisions when a person is Māori. She's now scrapped any mention of race in the official guidelines. In a rare media interview, Jagose says the previous version simply lacked clarity. "It led people to understand that I was saying there were two different approaches - one for Māori and one for everyone else. That was quite the opposite to what I was intending to say." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over the past four years, state attorneys general have brought many significant lawsuits against the Biden administration. From border enforcement and student loan forgiveness, to Title IX rules and environmental regulations, states have brought the executive branch into court over divisive legal questions. Some of these suits remain active. This panel of experts will recap the most notable cases of the past presidential term and discuss what the recent election could mean for the future.Featuring:Mr. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, OhioMr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson GrimsleyHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

An Interview with Paul Clement, Appellate Lawyer and Distinguished Lecturer in Law The US Constitution has long been revered by its citizens, yet also robustly challenged. Knowing that it would be tested, the founders created the judiciary to serve as an independent bulwark that would protect Americans' rights.  Yet the judiciary's independence has often been called into question lately, in part due to the country's ideological divide. Further, until recently, some of its authority had been ceded to the executive branch, creating an explosion of government regulation and intrusion into citizens' daily lives.  Few understand the state of the judiciary and the US Constitution better than Paul Clement, our guest on this episode of Voices of Freedom. Clement has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than anyone in recent history, giving him distinct insights into future of the Court and the most impactful rulings of our time.  Topics Discussed on this Episode: ·         How Clement's midwestern roots have influenced his approach with the Court ·         The significance of the rule of law in America and how it's distinctive from other countries ·         The danger in straying from the US Constitution's intent ·         State of the US Supreme Court ·         Court packing  - its impact on the rule of law and the Court's make up ·         How the reversal of Chevron will impact government regulation ·         What universities should do to protect free speech and counter anti-Semitism ·         The legal profession distancing itself from controversial cases ·         How Americans can understand and uphold the rule of law Paul Clement served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States between 2005 and 2008. Prior to that, he served as Acting Solicitor General and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. He is a partner at Clement & Murphy and a Bradley Foundation director. Clement is a 2013 Bradley Prize recipient.

OA1089 - Trump's Staff Infection, part 3 plus T3BE48! In this installment of Fashwatch's continuing review of Trump's incoming legal team, we take a closer look at what we know about the top spots in his DOJ and some of the other most important lawyers in any Presidential administration: White House counsel, Solicitor General, and the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  1. “How a Corporate Law Firm Led a Political Revolution,” David Enrich, The New York Times (8/25/22)  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

In this episode, Tom Fisher, Vice President and Director of Litigation for Ed Choice, discusses the critical role of legal advocacy in the school choice movement. He shares insights from his experience as Solicitor General of Indiana, the challenges faced in defending school choice programs, and the importance of parental choice in education. Fisher highlights the successes of Indiana's voucher program and the ongoing legal battles across the nation, emphasizing the need for continued advocacy to protect educational options for families. The conversation highlights the evolution of school choice in Indiana, particularly through the voucher system, and its role in expanding educational opportunities for families. Betsy and Robert break down the common misconceptions about school vouchers and explain how these programs empower parents, particularly in underserved communities. They also discuss the future of school choice, the importance of charter schools and private schools, and the critical need for educational freedom. Takeaways Tom Fisher leads Ed Choice Legal Advocates, focusing on litigation for school choice. The partnership with the Institute for Justice has been pivotal in defending school choice. Fisher's background as Solicitor General provided valuable experience in education law. The Indiana Supreme Court's ruling was a significant victory for school choice advocates. Litigation in state supreme courts focuses on legal arguments rather than evidence. School choice programs face ongoing legal challenges in various states. Indiana's unique approach includes vouchers, ESAs, and tax credit scholarships. The success of voucher programs is linked to parental choice and responsibility. Micro schools are an emerging trend in education, offering personalized options. Fisher is optimistic about the future of school choice and its impact on families. Did you find this episode informative? Help us out! Leave a review Share it with your friends Give us a 5 Star rating on your podcatcher of choice Learn more about IQE and MySchoolOptions: https://www.i4qed.org  Learn more about Tom's work at Ed Choice: https://www.edchoice.org 

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.Williams v. Washington, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.Garland v. VanDerStok, (October 8) -Second Amendment; Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.Lackey v. Stinnie, (October 8) -Civil Procedure; (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.Glossip v. Oklahoma, (October 9) -Criminal Law; (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, (October 15), -Immigration; Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.Medical Marijuana v. Horn, October 15 -Criminal Law; Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (October 16) -Environmental Law & Regulation; Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.Bufkin v. McDonough, (October 16) -Vetrans Affairs; Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule.Featuring:James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal FoundationJohn Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationMatthew Rice, Solicitor General, Tennessee Attorney General's OfficeZack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation(Moderator) Kirby T. West, Attorney, Institute of Justice

Pamela Karlan, experienced advocate and co-director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, joins Kate and Leah to break down just how exceptional Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is at her job. Then, all three hosts speak with Madiba K. Dennie about her book, The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Tune in to the latest Conversations with Ku for an interview episode featuring Lisamarie Bristol! They discuss what the Solicitor-General's office handles and how they serve and educate our community through various programs and events.Commissioner Ku would love to hear from you or answer questions about District 2. Feel free to email him at Ben.Ku@GwinnettCounty.com and your question may be read on air.

Join Webinar On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.Experts discuss and react to this 6-3 ruling.Featuring: Moderator: Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Insitute Speakers: Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate LitigationJosh Divine, Solicitor General, Missouri Attorney General's OfficeJenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Today we are celebrating our 200th Episode with the return of a special friend of the podcast, Judge Tanya Acker. Acker serves as one of three judges on Amazon Freevee's Tribunal Justice, created by Judge Judy Sheindlin. Acker also hosts "The Tanya Acker Show" podcast on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Overcast, and Pocketcasts. Most recently, Acker was a judge on the Emmy-nominated series, "Hot Bench." Acker is also the author of "Make Your Case: Finding Your Win in Civil Court," published by Diversion Books. In the book, Acker provides readers with curated, targeted information about what people want to know: what happens during court proceedings and why, how to best prepare for it — and how to avoid court entirely and find out if there is a better way. Acker is an experienced civil litigator who has represented a wide array of clients, from major automobile manufacturers in high-stakes product liability litigation to media companies in hotly contested trade secret disputes. She has been a featured commentator on "Good Morning America," "The View," "Entertainment Tonight," "Wendy Williams," "The Talk," "Inside Edition," "Banfield," "The O'Reilly Factor," "Larry King Live," "CNN Reports," "Anderson Cooper 360," "Issues with Jane Velez Mitchell," "Extra," "Your World With Neil Cavuto," "HLN's Special Report," "CNBC Reports," Great Britain's "GMTV" and Sky News, and various other broadcasts. She also guest co-hosted CNBC's "Power Lunch," and "C Magazine" included her in an election season profile on noteworthy California women in politics. Acker also has contributed to the Huffington Post and served as a Temporary Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Temporary Judge Program. While a student at Yale Law School, Acker represented low-income women in family law cases and served as a teaching assistant in Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure courses. She also worked at the Office of White House Counsel, the Civil Rights Division in the United States Department of Justice and the private law firms Irell & Manella, O'Melveny & Myers and Williams & Connolly. At Williams & Connolly, she assisted President Clinton's personal lawyers with press interviews, worked on the preparation of Congressional testimony for pending product liability legislation and researched First Amendment issues. After graduating from Yale, Acker served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Dorothy Wright Nelson on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. After her clerkship, the Office of the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice awarded Acker a Bristow Fellowship. While working as a Bristow Fellow, Acker drafted Supreme Court briefs and helped prepare the Solicitor General for oral argument before the High Court. Among the cases on which Acker worked was Clinton v Jones, where she assisted both the Solicitor General and President Clinton's personal attorneys in preparing for oral argument. In private practice, Acker's legal work spanned a broad variety of matters, from civil litigation involving public and private entities, to various constitutional cases, to providing constitutional cases, to the provision of business counseling and advice. She also maintained a commitment to pro bono work, receiving the ACLU's First Amendment Award for her successful representation of a group of homeless individuals against the City of Santa Barbara. Acker later worked in entertainment industry outreach for the Kerry/Edwards presidential campaign and as Deputy Campaign Manager for the Los Angeles mayoral campaign of City Councilman Bernard C. Parks. After that, she worked as the General Counsel of a company that manufactured emissions control products. Acker received her B.A. degree at Howard University in 1992, where she graduated summa cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She was awarded a Luard Scholarship for study at St. Anne's College at Oxford University and served there as the co-editor-in-chief of the Oxford University Women's Magazine. At Yale Law School, she was awarded an Earl Warren Scholarship by the NAACP and a Coker Fellowship by the Yale faculty. Acker maintains an active involvement in various philanthropic, civic and business organizations. A volunteer with Love Takes Root, she has traveled to Haiti to work in a clinic and orphanage founded by that organization. She is a member of the Beverly Hills West (CA) chapter of The Links, Incorporated, and additionally serves on the boards of Public Counsel, the Western Justice Center, the Boy Scouts of America (the National and Western Los Angeles County Council Boards); PacWest Bancorp; and as trustee of the Pacific Battleship Center, which operates the Battleship USS Iowa Museum. She is also a member of the Yale Law School Executive Committee and the Yale Law School Fund Board. ON THE KNOWS with Randall Kenneth Jones is a podcast featuring host Randall Kenneth Jones (bestselling author, speaker & creative communications consultant) and Susan C. Bennett (the original voice of Siri). ON THE KNOWS is produced and edited by Kevin Randall Jones. TANYA ACKER Online: Web: www.TribunalJustice.TV  Web: www.TanyaAckerShow.com ON THE KNOWS Online:    Join us in the Podcast Lounge on Facebook. X (Randy): https://twitter.com/randallkjones  Instagram (Randy): https://www.instagram.com/randallkennethjones/ Facebook (Randy): https://www.facebook.com/mindzoo/ Web:  RandallKennethJones.com  X (Susan): https://twitter.com/SiriouslySusan Instagram (Susan): https://www.instagram.com/siriouslysusan/ Facebook (Susan): https://www.facebook.com/siriouslysusan/ Web: SusanCBennett.com LinkedIn (Kevin): https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-randall-jones/  Web: www.KevinRandallJones.com    www.OnTheKnows.com

The oral arguments against January Sixers took place at the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. Howie shares the slam dunks from Justice Neil Gorsuch that highlight the hypocrisy and double standards of the Biden Department of Justice.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (04/16/2024): 3:05pm- While leaving a New York City court on Monday, former President Donald Trump told reporters it is a “scam trial” and the politicized charges amount to “election interference.” He also revealed that the judge will not allow him to skip part of the trial to attend his son's high school graduation ceremony. Trump has been indicted for attempting to conceal payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges that the payment concealment amounted to falsified business records which influenced the 2016 election. 3:10pm- On Tuesday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) requested that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) resign—after Speaker Johnson announced he plans to hold a vote on Ukraine aid funding later this week. Massie joins Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) as Republican members of Congress now vocally opposed to Johnson remaining in power. Working with a slim Republican majority in the House (218-213 with 4 vacancies), is Johnson now in serious jeopardy of being removed as Speaker? 3:15pm- According to Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire, Saudi Arabia publicly acknowledged that they assisted Israel, the United States, the U.K., Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates in “repelling a combination of more than 300 missiles and drones” launched from Iran and directed at Israel. You can read the full report here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/saudi-arabia-publicly-acknowledges-defending-israel-from-iranian-attacks-reports 3:30pm- While entering court on Tuesday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said he should be on the campaign trail visiting swing states instead of defending himself in court against politicized charges. 3:40pm- James Lynch of National Review writes: “House Republicans delivered articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate, citing his refusal to combat record levels of illegal immigration. A group of GOP impeachment managers walked over to the Senate Tuesday afternoon to officially deliver the articles and initiate an impeachment trial as Democrats seek to expedite the process or dismiss the charges altogether. Senators will be sworn-in as jurors on Wednesday to begin trial proceedings.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/house-republicans-deliver-mayorkas-impeachment-articles-to-senate/ 3:50pm- While appearing on CNN, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman ridiculously accused Donald Trump of glaring at her in court after she reported that Trump may have fallen asleep during legal proceedings. 4:05pm- Bruce LeVell—Senior Advisor to President Donald Trump & Former Small Business Advisory Advocate for the White House—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the 2024 campaign, Trump's New York City trial over “hush money” payments, and President Joe Biden's recent trip to Scranton. 4:25pm- While appearing on CNN, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman ridiculously accused Donald Trump of glaring at her in court after she reported that Trump may have fallen asleep during legal proceedings. 4:30pm- Andrew C. McCarthy—Senior Fellow at National Review Institute & Author of “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Donald Trump's ongoing “hush money” trial. Trump was indicted for attempting to conceal payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges that the payment concealment amounted to falsified business records which influenced the 2016 election. McCarthy hilariously notes that Bragg's legal argument seems to imply that it's acceptable for a politician to pay-off adult film actresses with campaign funds provided the transactions are properly documented! You can learn more about his book here: https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/ball-of-collusion/.   4:50pm- On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fischer v. United States—a case which will determine whether obstruction laws can be used to charge January 6th defendants. While questioning U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if “pulling a fire alarm before a [Congressional] vote” would qualify as obstruction, potentially resulting in up to 20-years of federal imprisonment. Notably, Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) pulled a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building just prior to the House holding its vote on a stopgap spending measure—allegedly to delay the vote. 5:05pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the recent op-ed she co-authored with Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) for Fox News, “Biden's Moral Equivalency Between Israel and the Palestinians Will Result in Failure—Again.” Coates and Roy write that President Joe “Biden still claims to ‘stand with Israel.' But he doesn't want to stand with Israel too much because he risks losing the votes of those who support the Palestinians—including, apparently, his own wife. So now he's encouraging Israel to stand down instead of standing up to the Iranians.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-moral-equivalency-between-israel-palestinians-will-result-failure-again. Dr. Coates is the author of “David's Sling: A History of Democracy in Ten Works of Art.” You can find her book here: https://www.amazon.com/Davids-Sling-History-Democracy-Works/dp/1594037213. 5:30pm- Matthew Lamb—Associate Editor of The College Fix—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to talk about the website's recent article, “Philly Med School Will Pursue ‘Diverse Workforce' Through Scholarship, Special Program.” You can read the full piece here: https://www.thecollegefix.com/philly-med-school-will-pursue-diverse-workforce-through-scholarships-special-programs/ 5:50pm- Rich is filling in for Mark Levin tonight!