Podcasts about Solicitor general

AlabamaLA Redistricting case had its day before SCOTUS, AG Marshall and ALGOP Chairman John Wahl both filed amicus briefs in this caseSen. Tuberville offers NO Sharia Law Act into US senateCharter School Commission approves 5 year contract for Magic City Acceptance Academy, no questions askedMarshall county Dems plan a No Kings protest for this weekend, county commission offers new regulations for that eventTurning Point USA to hold event at Auburn University on November 5thNationalTrump admin revokes 60 visas for Mexican officials with ties to cartelsUS pentagon revokes media badges to outlets refusing new security rulesWH deputy Solicitor General argues for traditional metrics in LA redistricting caseFBI and DOJ give updates on effort to reduce violent crime in major citiesNancy Pelosi snaps and wags her fingers at reporter over J6 questionChatGPT founder Sam Altman moves toward "Erotica" version of AI

The Pretoria High Court will today hear the Presidency's bid to recover over R28 million in legal fees from former President Jacob Zuma. The costs stem from his court battles since 2018, linked to the 1999 arms deal. Zuma's legal team argues he cannot afford the repayment, citing financial hardship despite his pension. The Presidency, alongside the State Attorney and Solicitor-General is pushing for a court order to enforce repayment with added interest, potentially increasing the total amount owed. Previous rulings from the Gauteng High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal have declared Zuma ineligible for taxpayer-funded legal defense. For legal analysis on the matter Bongiwe Zwane spoke to Legal analyst, Melusi Xulu

Barrett v. United States | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-5774 24-5774 BARRETT V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 102 F.4th 60 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CHARLES L. McCLOUD, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 3/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: I. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree. II. Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) (3)(A), a question left open after" United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney , 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1379

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 2 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we released last Thursday, September 25, cover these critical topics: ·        The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·        A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·        The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·        The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·        The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·        The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·        The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·        The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Sept. 29, 2025: Guest host Charis Hogg in for Jas Johal Feds officially declare Bishnoi gang as terrorist entity (0:00) Guest: Kash Heed, former Public Safety Minister and Solicitor General of B.C, and former Chief Constable of the West Vancouver Police Department Can Larry Campbell help address challenges in the Downtown Eastside? (6:34) Guest: Sarah Blyth, Advocate for the DTES and Executive Director of the Overdose Prevention Society Vancouver Layoffs at Vancouver City Hall: necessary savings or desperate cost-cutting? (13:03) Guest: Dan Fumano, City Columnist for Vancouver Sun and The Province Are Vancouver City Hall's cost-cutting measures reckless? (20:45) Guest: Rebecca Bligh, Vancouver City councillor and mayoral candidate Is WestJet saying goodbye to reclining seats in economy class? (28:13) Guest: Claire Newell, President of Travel Best Bets Trump threatens outsourced film production with 100% tariffs (37:44) Guest: Rick Forchuk, TV Week Magazine columnist and CKNW contributor How to safely buy Girl Guide cookies without getting scammed (45:19) Guest: Diamond Isinger, provincial spokesperson for B.C. Girl Guides Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul unpack how BC's public-sector job action has frozen Immediate Roadside Prohibition hearings and delayed decisions, leaving drivers punished without a path to challenge. They explain why blanket adjournments without dates breach procedural fairness, the legal demands made to the Superintendent and Solicitor General, and a test-case petition filed to push back against government inaction. Finally, the Ridiculous Drivers of the Week are political: BC's finance minister racks up six thousand dollars in limo charges on a US trip, and Ontario's premier calls traffic cameras a cash grab after years of backing them. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and 'Sit Still Jackson' at sitstilljackson.com

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 1 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we release one week from today cover these critical topics: ·         The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·         A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·         The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·         The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·         The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·         The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·         The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·         The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Jerry discusses the us versus them mentality that is prevalent these days. Is it time to get rid of grades from schools? Jerry doesn't think so. A conversation with Ontario's Solicitor General, Michael Kerzner about public safety and bail reform. Plus - Francis Syms weighs in on a cyberattack that hit major European airports and caused disruptions and delays.

CK Council meets tonight and there's bound to be plenty of debate.  The next phase of Ontario's $2.1 billion Primary Care Action Plan launched Monday. Ontario's Solicitor General wants harsher punishments for people who repeatedly break the law. Canada is ramping up efforts to deepen trade ties with Europe as the future of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement faces renewed uncertainty over U.S. tariffs. Let us know if you agree with Canada formally recognizing a Palestinian state. A Chatham-Kent Barnstormer is taking home one of the Intercounty Baseball League's top annual awards.

(The Center Square) – A complaint against Solicitor General Noah Purcell with the Washington State Executive Ethics Board has been rejected for investigation despite allegations that the decision by Executive Director Kate Reynolds was made amid a conflict of interest. According to emails obtained by The Center Square, Reynolds has previously written that she reports to Purcell. Last month, Purcell wrote a response to the Washington State Bar Association on behalf of Attorney General Nick Brown related to an ethics complaint filed against him. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

(The Center Square) – A complaint against Solicitor General Noah Purcell with the Washington State Executive Ethics Board has been rejected for investigation despite allegations that the decision by Executive Director Kate Reynolds was made amid a conflict of interest. According to emails obtained by The Center Square, Reynolds has previously written that she reports to Purcell. Last month, Purcell wrote a response to the Washington State Bar Association on behalf of Attorney General Nick Brown related to an ethics complaint filed against him. Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx Read more: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_04086815-147d-4b7a-9933-1b3566bfcc15.html

(The Center Square) – Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell is the focus of a Washington State Bar Association complaint alleging misconduct for responding on Attorney General Nick Brown's behalf in a separate bar complaint, and directly communicating with private law firm Perkins Coie without its attorney's consent. The complaint comes right after news broke that Brown faces an inquiry by the bar association over an amicus brief filed in support of Perkins Coie, The Center Square reported this month. Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx Read more: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_18d2bfb4-df4c-4673-ba96-fb702a5ba87c.html

Amy Wax, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, talks to Timon about her cancellation, the state of academia, and western civilization.    Amy Wax is a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she has taught since 2001, holding the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law chair since 2007. A native of Troy, New York, she earned a B.S. summa cum laude in molecular biophysics and biochemistry from Yale in 1975, a Marshall Scholarship to Oxford, and an M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1981, where she trained as a neurologist. She completed her J.D. from Columbia Law School in 1987, serving as an editor of the Columbia Law Review. Wax clerked for Judge Abner J. Mikva and argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court while working in the Office of the Solicitor General. She taught at the University of Virginia School of Law from 1994 to 2001. Her academic work focuses on social welfare law, family policy, and labor markets. In 2024, she was suspended from teaching for one year due to controversial statements, which she challenged in a lawsuit.   Learn more about Amy Wax's work: https://www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/awax/ https://www.thefire.org/cases/university-pennsylvania-following-controversial-commentary-amy-wax-faces-major-sanction-penn   ––––––   Follow American Reformer across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://www.twitter.com/amreformer Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmericanReformer/ YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@AmericanReformer Rumble – https://rumble.com/user/AmReformer Website – https://americanreformer.org/   Promote a vigorous Christian approach to the cultural challenges of our day, by donating to The American Reformer: https://americanreformer.org/donate/   Follow Us on Twitter: Josh Abbotoy – https://twitter.com/Byzness Timon Cline – https://twitter.com/tlloydcline   The American Reformer Podcast is  hosted by Josh Abbotoy and Timon Cline, recorded remotely in the United States, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to our Podcast, "The American Reformer" Get our RSS Feed – https://americanreformerpodcast.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-american-reformer-podcast/id1677193347 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/1V2dH5vhfogPIv0X8ux9Gm?si=a19db9dc271c4ce5

Bengals Paycor Deal; Cuyahoga County Credit Rating and Jail Build; DeWine on Prop Betting; Solicitor General; Student Loan Balances; Ohio State Fair Friday; Geauga County Hwy Robbery; Akron Law School Vandalism; Clermont County Baby Murder; Cleveland Public Television Fraud; Phillipsburg Chaos; Hopkins Airport Stats; OSU Football; Cleveland Heights Mayor Defends Wife

Guest is Matthew Rice, the Solicitor General of Tennessee, who argued U.S. v. Skrmetti before the Supreme Court, to discuss the implications of the decision protecting children from surgical mutilation and abusive drug treatments. Review of the three horror movies made by Hollywood based on the 1896 book by H.G. Wells, “The Island of Dr. […]

Guest is Matthew Rice, the Solicitor General of Tennessee, who argued U.S. v. Skrmetti before the Supreme Court, to discuss the implications of the decision protecting children from surgical mutilation and abusive drug treatments.Review of the three horror movies made by Hollywood based on the 1896 book by H.G. Wells, “The Island of Dr. Moreau.”

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) 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 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 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

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

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.

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!

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