Podcasts about Solicitor general

The High Court is quashing earlier court directions to return gang patches to some members. Open Justice reports two men caught wearing patches in separate incidents were prosecuted, and in each the presiding judge ruled they could get back their insignia. The Solicitor-General appealed those directions. Newstalk ZB senior political correspondent Barry Soper outlined the terms of the ruling. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: The Burning of the GaspeeOn this day in 1772, a Royal Navy revenue schooner called HMS Gaspee, captained by a notably overzealous Lieutenant William Duddington, ran aground in shallow water in Narragansett Bay while chasing a Rhode Island packet boat called the Hannah. Within hours of the grounding, roughly sixty Providence merchants, sailors, and “Sons of Liberty” — led by John Brown, one of the wealthiest men in the colony — rowed out under cover of darkness in eight longboats, boarded the Gaspee, shot Duddington, and burned the ship to the waterline. The legal significance lies in what came next. The Crown convened a Royal Commission of Inquiry with authority to ship the perpetrators across the Atlantic for trial in England, bypassing colonial juries entirely, a procedural maneuver that the colonies read as a direct attack on the right to jury trial in the vicinage.The Virginia House of Burgesses responded in March 1773 by forming the first Committee of Correspondence, a sustained intercolonial communication network that became, two years later, the institutional skeleton of the Continental Congress. The Gaspee Affair never produced a single prosecution — the commission could not get the colonial governor or the Rhode Island courts to cooperate, and witness testimony evaporated — but it produced something more durable: the colonial conviction that the Crown's willingness to detour around local juries was itself a constitutional grievance worth organizing against. The right-to-jury-in-the-vicinage point that Madison wrote into the Sixth Amendment seventeen years later is, in a real sense, the Gaspee Affair's longest-lived legacy.The Supreme Court on Monday granted, vacated, and remanded the D.C. Circuit's decision in American Gas Association v. Department of Energy, sending the long-disputed Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rule on non-condensing residential gas furnaces and commercial water heaters back to the D.C. Circuit “for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General.” That last phrase is the operative one. The new Solicitor General, on behalf of the second Trump administration's DOE, told the Court in late April that the prior administration's reading of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was, in DOE's current view, wrong, and that the rule effectively bans non-condensing units that millions of homes and small commercial properties were built around. A confessed-error from a new administration doesn't automatically win a case, but the procedural vehicle — a grant-vacate-remand, or “GVR” — is the Court's standard way of saying “go look at this again with the new posture in mind” without resolving the merits itself.The trade-group plaintiffs, led by the American Gas Association and the American Public Gas Association, framed the rule from the start as a de facto product ban dressed up as efficiency standards. The environmental and consumer groups that intervened to defend the rule will get another bite at the apple on remand, but their position is harder when their own client agency has switched sides. Watch the D.C. Circuit's case calendar over the next few weeks for an expedited briefing schedule.Supreme Court Vacates Decision Outlawing Gas Stoves, Water Heaters | NewsBustersSCOTUSblog on Monday published a careful overview of an increasingly organized litigation campaign to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The campaign now includes Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, and the Southern Baptist Convention, which last year voted overwhelmingly to urge the Court to reverse the decision. The underlying ground for the push is partly the Court's reasoning in Dobbs four years ago, which gave conservative litigants a road map for unwinding substantive due process precedents, and partly the gradual erosion of public-opinion support for same-sex marriage in one slice of the polling, with Republican support falling from 55 percent in 2022 to 37 percent now. The legal headcount at the Court is, however, the part of the story that is not yet there.Only Justice Thomas has been a consistent vote to revisit Obergefell, having said so in his Dobbs concurrence. Justice Alito, despite being one of Obergefell's original dissenters, recently emphasized in a public speech that he is not suggesting the case should be overruled, citing stare decisis. Justice Gorsuch's dissent in 303 Creative seems to concede that Obergefell is good law and tries instead to carve out specific exceptions to it. None of which is a reason for litigants on the marriage-equality side to relax. The path Dobbs opened up is wider than any single justice's current voting pattern, and the campaign is plainly playing a long game.The next round of test cases on standing and ripeness will start to surface in the lower courts in the next term or two — that is when the campaign's seriousness becomes measurable.The campaign to overrule Obergefell | SCOTUSblogThe third and most constitutionally significant story of the day is one we've been watching: the litigation over President Trump's $400 million ballroom — built on the site of the demolished East Wing — is on track to land in front of the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog reported Monday. The D.C. Circuit panel that heard the case for more than two hours in late April has not yet ruled, but the questioning made clear that a more substantial opinion is coming and that an appeal to the Court is the likely next stop regardless of which side wins. The legal question is unusually fundamental. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argues that the President has no “free-floating” power to construct major federal buildings without an appropriation from Congress, and that the Antideficiency Act and the Public Buildings Act both require the kind of statutory authorization the East Wing ballroom never received.The administration's response, delivered in a tone that several court-watchers described as unusually defiant, has essentially been that construction has “gone too far to be stopped” and that the courts have no role in second-guessing a presidential building decision once the steel is up. The structural separation-of-powers questions here — what does the Appropriations Clause actually constrain, and can a federal court enjoin a President from continuing to build something that is partially constructed — are large enough that the Supreme Court will almost certainly want to take the case if it reaches the high court. Construction, meanwhile, continues. The most likely Supreme Court resolution is a narrow opinion on standing or remedies, with the broader Appropriations Clause questions deferred for another day. We will see.White House ballroom battle may soon arrive at the Supreme Court | SCOTUSblogIn my Bloomberg Tax column this week, I argue that the SALT deduction cap's biggest problem is not that it is unconstitutional, but that it is badly designed. The latest failed challenge, Sims v. United States, involved two New Jersey taxpayers who claimed the cap violated the 10th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and broader federalism principles. The federal district court rejected those arguments, finding that Congress has broad authority to tax income and decide which deductions are allowed, limited, or denied. My point is that opponents of the SALT cap should stop looking for constitutional defects that courts are unlikely to find and instead focus on forcing Congress to fix the policy it created.I explain that the cap has always been politically loaded: supporters see it as a needed limit on a deduction that benefits many high-income taxpayers in high-tax states, while critics see it as a targeted attack on those states. But unfair or politically motivated tax policy is not automatically unconstitutional. The real weakness, I argue, is the cap's uneven design, especially the pass-through entity tax workaround. Many business owners can effectively get around the cap when state taxes are paid at the entity level, while wage earners, sole proprietors, and many individual taxpayers remain stuck behind it.That creates a serious mismatch: two taxpayers can live in the same state, earn similar income, and face similar state tax burdens, but receive different federal treatment depending on whether one has the right business structure. I argue that this kind of selective relief may be a more promising target for a narrower administrative or legal challenge than another broad constitutional attack on Congress's taxing power. Congress partly recognized the problem when it raised the cap from $10,000 to $40,000, but I note that the fix is temporary, only lightly indexed, and still leaves major structural problems in place. The marriage penalty remains especially glaring because married couples filing jointly do not receive double the cap available to similarly situated unmarried taxpayers.I also criticize the phaseout design because it can create cliffs or marginal-rate spikes that reward tax gamesmanship rather than sound policy. A better fix, in my view, would make the higher cap permanent, index it meaningfully, eliminate the marriage penalty, smooth out the phaseout, and require Treasury to rationalize the treatment of pass-through entity taxes. The lesson from Sims is that courts may uphold the SALT cap, but that does not make it good tax policy. If the cap is unfair, incoherent, or selectively porous, Congress owns that problem.SALT Deduction Cap Falls Short in Design, Not Constitutionality This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

My next guest on Mea Culpa is Neal Kaytal. The former Obama administration Solicitor General of the United States and New York Times bestselling author, of “Impeach,” The Case Against Donald Trump. In addition, Neal runs one of the largest Supreme Court practices in the world where he occupies the role formerly held by now Chief Justice John Roberts. From a legal perspective, the man is an absolute heavy hitter and one of the sharpest minds we've had on this show to date. He has orally argued 43 cases before the Supreme Court with 41 of them in the last decade. At the age of 50, he has already argued more Supreme Court cases in U.S. history than any other minority attorney, breaking the record of Thurgood Marshall. Make sure to check out his new podcast Courtside where each week Neal discusses a major Supreme Court case with a non-lawyer guest. This week it's all about the prosecution of presidents and the landmark, Morrison V. Olsen. Comedian John Mulaney joins the proceedings. on He joins us today on Mea Culpa to unpack the Target Letter and to discuss the myriad ways Trump will likely end up behind bars. 

In this special episode, recorded at the Neukom Center's Rule of Law Speaker Series, Judge J. Michael Luttig, former Fourth Circuit judge and ex-General Counsel of Boeing,  discusses a looming constitutional crises facing the United States. Drawing on Lincoln, Paine, and Churchill, Judge Luttig argues that the Trump administration's actions represent not the exploitation of constitutional vulnerabilities, but unconstitutional conduct that federal courts have repeatedly struck down. He expresses particular alarm over the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket to stay lower court decisions without briefing, argument, or written reasoning — a practice he characterizes as a crisis within the Court itself. Judge Luttig also addresses the DOJ's institutional corruption, Congress's abdication of war powers and tariff authority, and the Supreme Court's sweeping immunity ruling in Trump v. United States. Throughout, he challenges law students to treat their professional oath as a solemn civic obligation in a moment of national testing. Links: Honorable J. Michael Luttig >>> Federal Judicial Center page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00) America at 250—A Nation Under Assault from Within (14:00) The Legal Profession as Guardian of the Constitution  (20:30) Unconstitutional by Design—The Trump Administration's Legal Record (28:00) The Corruption of the DOJ (36:00) Congress, the War Power, and the Collapse of Separation of Powers (42:30) The Supreme Court, the Shadow Docket, and Presidential Immunity  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

The 5th Circuit gave us a doozy late on Friday night by tightening access to the abortion drug mifepristone—Leah and Melissa break it down. Then, the full crew dives deeper into the Court's catastrophic Voting Rights Act decision in Louisiana v. Callais (for their initial reaction, check out last week's emergency episode). Next, they recap the troubling oral arguments in Mullin v. Doe, the case about Temporary Protected Status, in which Trump's Solicitor General tried to argue that the President's extremely racist statements about migrants from certain countries weren't, in fact, racist at all. Also covered: Trump's ballroom, arguments in an important Fourth Amendment case, and how some savvy federal judges are turning the administration's favorite legal concept—the unitary executive theory—against it. Favorite things: Kate: The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny, Kiran Desai; Transcription, Ben Lerner Leah: Ariana Grande's new album announcement; Noah Kahan on tour; SCOTUS Drops The Other Shoe on the Voting Rights Act, Sherrilyn Ifill (Sherrilyn's Newsletter); The Slaying of the Voting Rights Act by the Coward Samuel Alito, Rick Hasen (Slate); The Supreme Court is Corrupt. This is What We Can Do About It, Jamelle Bouie  Melissa: Yesteryear, Caro Claire Burke; Voters Can Be Disenfranchised Now, Adam Serwer (The Atlantic); Legal Defense Fund Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026! 6/20/26 – New York City Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderPreorder a signed paperback of Leah's book, Lawless, here.Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Deb talks with Ontario’s Solicitor General. Do you want the Special Constables to have these powers?GUESTS: Michael Kerzner - Ontario Solicitor General Dr. Suzanne Dupuis-Blanchard - RN professor and research chair in aging at the Université de Moncton Patrick Lucciani - writer and book reviewer for The Hub and former executive director of the Donner Canadian Foundation

Greg Brady, Clayton Campbell, President of the Toronto Police Association & Hank Idsinga, 640 Toronto's Crime Specialist, former police inspector discuss: 1 - Ex-top homicide cop Hank Idsinga says he won't do interview with Toronto police after explosive allegations in memoir 2 - The Toronto Police Association fundamentally opposes the Solicitor General's plan for the OPP to take over some policing in Toronto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Open Sources Guelph, we're going to have our dessert first. Predictably, we have some thoughts about the Premier of Ontario going plane shopping, but more seriously then that there are some serious issues in the province's jails that we need to talk about. Speaking of talks, there's one being hosted at the Kitchener Public Library on kids and tech, and we will have two of the panelists for a little pre-show chat. This Thursday, April 23, at 5 pm, Scotty Hertz and Adam A. Donaldson will discuss: Takes on a Plane. Utterly unproductive to Ontario's litany of problems, but still the topic of the week, was the news that the Ontario government bought a private plane for the premier's use. The so-called "gravy plane" was the story of the week, and the reaction was so overwhelmingly negative that it secured a rare Doug Ford reversal. Mischief managed, right? Not so fast because pundits and politicians are now wondering if Ford's plane dreams have cut a fatal wound. Rock House Jail. In more serious news, comes word that over 100 people in Ontario jails may have been "improperly" released in a serious of administrative snafus over a five year period. We've talked before about the dangerous overcrowding in Ontario's jails, and how most of the people there are just awaiting trial, but have the issues with the province's prisons now extend to mismanagement in the Solicitor General's office? Little Minds and Big Tech. What is the effect of our digital culture on young people? How should we teach kids to manage life with artificial intelligence? What can parents do to help kids make good tech decisions? These are big questions with no easy answer, but the Early Language Learning & Literacy Alliance of Waterloo Region (ELLA) will be hosting an event on Monday that will try to answer them. Before that, we will be joined by two of the participants - Media Stamped host Nicole Stamp and executive director of Project READ Literacy Network Waterloo-Wellington Robin Crank - to start thinking about the future. Open Sources is live on CFRU 93.3 fm and cfru.ca at 5 pm on Thursday.

Greg Brady, Clayton Campbell, President of the Toronto Police Association & Hank Idsinga, 640 Toronto's Crime Specialist, former police inspector discuss: 1 - Ex-top homicide cop Hank Idsinga says he won't do interview with Toronto police after explosive allegations in memoir 2 - The Toronto Police Association fundamentally opposes the Solicitor General's plan for the OPP to take over some policing in Toronto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

G+T Partner Geoff Petersen unpacks the regulatory response to the fuel shocks that are raising prices and causing shortages around the world, including security of energy supply and infrastructure, new demand from electric vehicles and data centres, and questions about fuel price gouging and domestic gas reservation.. Plus, the first quarter of the new merger regime and another round for the MicroStar/Konvoy acquisition, our new Solicitor-General of Australia, and the Wiggles deliver their product safety podcast … All this and a muse of fire with co-hosts Moya Dodd and Matt Rubinstein. Links:   Derek Jacobi's "Wooden O" speech from Kenneth Branagh's Henry V Dire Straits, "Heavy Fuel" What was the googlewhack? ACCC, "New merger regime off to a positive start" MicroStar/Konvoy on the new acquisitions register and the old public informal review register Attorney-General recommends Solicitor-General to Governor-General The Wiggles' podcast on button battery and toy safety The ACCC's weekly fuel price monitoring report G+T on the new maximum penalties for competition and consumer contraventions Meet the Gilbert + Tobin Competition, Consumer + Market Regulation team Email us at edge@gtlaw.com.au Support the show: https://www.gtlaw.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trump v. Barbara - the birthright citizenship case - reaches the Supreme Court, and we are there.  Akhil and Andy are at the oral argument, and immediately afterwards we stand outside the courthouse and you hear (and see, from the linked video) the emotions that affected not only your hosts, but no doubt the justices themselves as the case unfolded. Then it's off to the audiotape, as we play the clips of the Justices and the advocates, and Akhil does his Howard Cosell imitation, analyzing the arguments as you hear them.  Given the Professor's status as the author of an amicus brief in the case, a brief the Solicitor General chose to take on in his own reply brief, the perspective this episode offers our audience - you - is unique.  So with the arguments of the advocates; the questions of the justices; and the knowledge of the amicus, you will know as much as anyone and be in the best position to assess the case as a whole - after listening to this special episode and those to follow. And as always, CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

And Pam Bondi earned a pink slip. ----- The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Trump's effort to erase birthright citizenship from the Constitution via executive order, and it went as poorly for the administration as expected. But that didn't deter Trump from taking the unprecedented step of attending the argument personally. The president didn't last the whole time though, heading for the exit mid-proceeding as it became clear that his Solicitor General was getting boatraced by the competition. Afterward, the graduates of the Twitter School of Law ran to their computers to complain about Justice Jackson because... racism. Meanwhile, a Texas judge earns viral infamy for sniping at an IT worker and then doubled down on arrogance. And the Attorney General got canned.

It was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump's return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we've been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump's hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She's out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi's legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ's mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump's return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we've been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump's hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She's out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi's legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ's mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump's return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we've been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump's hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She's out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi's legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ's mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Justice Jackson's Stolen Wallet Speech Was a Gift to Trump Trump made history walking into SCOTUS while Justice Jackson compared birthright citizenship to stealing a wallet in Japan. Mayra Flores just lost her own Republican primary in a majority-Hispanic district and then told CPAC the GOP cannot survive without Hispanic voters. And eight million people hit the streets under the No Kings banner funded by Soros and organized alongside groups calling openly for revolution. Austin Petersen breaks down the biggest constitutional case in a generation, the Hispanic voter data every Republican needs before November, and why the party that uses the 14th Amendment to protect your gun rights cannot treat that same amendment as negotiable on citizenship.

It's an Emmajority Report Thursday on The Majority Report   On today's program:   Trump delivers a speech on the war in Iran where he still cannot clearly explain his goals and objectives. Oil prices surged past $113 a barrel following his uninspiring speech.   At an Easter lunch event at the White House, Donal Trump says the federal government cannot handle daycare, Medicare or Medicaid because "we have wars to fight".   Author and essayist, Rana Dasgupta joins Emma for a discussion about his forthcoming book After Nations: The Making and Unmaking of a World Order.   Fox News reports that Pam Bondi has been fired from her role as Attorney General.   In the Fun Half:   Brandon Sutton and Matt Binder join Emma.   The Supreme Court hears the oral arguments for the Birthright Citizenship case. Neil Gorsuch pressed the U.S. Solicitor General on whether Native Americans count as Americans under his interpretation of birthright citizenship; the response: "I'd have to think about it."   Adam Sosnick fails miserably in a debate with Dave Smith which leads to Patrick Bet-David dressing Sosnick down live on their podcast in a fashion that has to be heard to believed.   all that and more   Preorder Molly Crabapple's book: Here Where We Live is Our Country.   To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: WILD GRAIN: Get $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/MAJORITY to start your subscription..   SUNSET LAKE: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, v. Barbara, No. 25-365, on April 1, 2026. TRACKS: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General of the United States, for President Donald Trump Cecillia Derphine Wang, Attorney, for children born in United States D. John Sauer (Rebuttal)

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, v. Barbara, No. 25-365, on April 1, 2026. TRACKS: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General of the United States, for President Donald Trump Cecillia Derphine Wang, Attorney, for children born in United States D. John Sauer (Rebuttal)

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, v. Barbara, No. 25-365, on April 1, 2026. TRACKS: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General of the United States, for President Donald Trump Cecillia Derphine Wang, Attorney, for children born in United States D. John Sauer (Rebuttal)

From Spinoza's thinking and the approach of different religions to the Dickens' character Uriah Heep and the "humble brag" - in Radio 4's late night ideas discussion programme Matthew Sweet and guests explore humility.Lamorna Ash is a writer and journalist and the author of Don't Forget We're Here Forever, which explores what it means to be a Christian for young people throughout the UK today and reflected on her own journey into faith.Sir Robert Buckland is the former Conservative MP for South Swindon, a former Lord Chancellor and Solicitor General. He is a practicing barrister with Foundry Chambers, a visiting law professor at the LSE and the Third Church Estates Commissioner.Aaron Reeves is Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics and co author of Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite with Sam Friedman.Ceri Sullivan is a Professor of English Literature at Cardiff University. Her research has encompassed the managerial techniques presented in Shakespeare's history plays, pragmatism in literary texts and devotional poetry.Dr Dan Taylor is Senior Lecturer in Social and Political Thought at the Open University. He is the author of Spinoza and the Politics of Freedom and is involved in long term projects with long-term projects examining inclusion and housing in Barking and Dagenham; unpaid care in Gateshead; and community in the Fens.Producer: Ruth Watts

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.Watson v. Republican National Committee, (March 23) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., (March 24) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.Noem v. Al Otro Lado, (March 24) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, (March 25) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.Abouammo v. United States, (March 30) - Proper Venue, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, (March 30) - Jurisdiction; Issue(s): Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.Pitchford v. Cain, (March 31) - Criminal Appellate Litigation; Issue(s): Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.Trump v. Barbara, (April 1) - Birthright Citizenship, Fourteenth Amendment; Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.Featuring:Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election ConfidenceHon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLPZac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General(Moderator) Oliver Dunford, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

In Suncor Energy, Inc., v. Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts may use tort law to impose what amounts to a nationwide climate regulatory regime—despite Congress’s central role in addressing interstate and international emissions.Colorado local governments sued several energy companies in state court, asserting nuisance, trespass, consumer protection, and conspiracy claims for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although framed as state-law tort actions, the lawsuits seek damages and remedies tied to worldwide energy production and cross-border emissions—issues that are inherently national and international in scope.The energy companies argue that these claims are displaced by federal law because they attempt to regulate interstate and international pollution, an area requiring uniform federal rules. Allowing 50 different state courts to impose varying standards for global emissions, they contend, would undermine constitutional structure, interfere with federal authority, and invite judicial policymaking on questions committed to Congress and the political branches.The Colorado Supreme Court rejected those arguments, permitting the case to proceed in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted review and added an important threshold question: whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this interlocutory stage—raising additional concerns about the proper limits of judicial power under Article III.This webinar will examine whether state-law climate tort suits represent a legitimate exercise of state authority or an attempt to achieve sweeping national policy changes through strategic litigation rather than the democratic process. What does constitutional structure require when global environmental regulation collides with state common law? And what are the consequences for federalism if courts become venues for resolving inherently national policy disputes?Join us for a discussion of the constitutional stakes and what this case may mean for the future of climate litigation nationwide. Featuring:Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research CenterO.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersMichael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia(Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

Ever wondered how a single Supreme Court case could reshape the entire freight brokerage industry? We're thrilled to have the Armchair Attorney Matt Leffler back on the show to break down the high-stakes broker liability landscape and the recent oral arguments that have everyone in transportation talking.  We dive deep into the legal nuances of the Montgomery v. CH Robinson case, exploring whether brokers should be held liable for the negligence of motor carriers and what the Solicitor General's support for the industry actually means for your daily operations.  Matt and I pull no punches as we discuss the "rotten" state of the supply chain, the critical need for updated FMCSA regulations, and why relying on outdated 1980s standards is a recipe for disaster in a modern freight market.  If you want a straightforward look at the potential for a "golden age" of high-standard operations versus the looming threat of an onslaught of lawsuits, you can't afford to miss this episode!   About Matthew Leffler Matthew is a 3rd generation supply chain executive with over fifteen years of experience in safety, law, & maintenance. Matthew currently serves as Vice President of Strategic Accounts at Contract Leasing Corp. He is also an attorney that provides legal commentary on various supply chain issues & operates a popular podcast. In addition, Matthew has served as a senior leader with some of the nation's most admired maintenance, repair, & fleet management firms. Matthew entered the industry as an attorney defending trucking companies in civil litigation in 2010, but cut his teeth helping build & later selling his family's maintenance firm, Outsource Fleet Services, Inc. Matthew earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew is the proud father of Michael, Rowan, Elise, & Elijah & has been happily married to his wife, Holly, since 2008.  

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit claremontinstitute.substack.comCalifornia's radical law, forbidding schools and teachers from reporting students' gender dysmorphia and transgender treatments to parents, has just been shot down by the Supreme Court. Eric Wessan, Claremont alum and Solicitor General at the Iowa Office of the Attorney General, joins host Spencer Klavan to discuss the parental rights victory, touch on …

In a new episode of the Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance are joined by former Solicitor General of the United States Don Verrilli to break down the Supreme Court's decision striking down President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. In an excerpt from the conversation, they discuss Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion. In the full episode, Preet, Joyce, and Don dive deeper into the tariffs ruling, including the separation-of-powers principles implicated in this case and the logistical chaos that may follow as companies seek reimbursements for tariffs paid.  CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis.  Not an Insider? Join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times. Insiders get access to full episodes of the Insider podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com/subscribe.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Senior Audio Producer: Matthew Billy; CAFE Team: Celine Rohr, Nat Weiner, Jennifer Indig, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Robert H. Jackson was not an easy man to know, but "I found being in Robert Jackson's company on the whole a great pleasure," says G. Edward White, author of the new biography Robert H. Jackson: A Life in Judgement. A longtime ally of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jackson served as both Solicitor General and Attorney General before FDR nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, he often pined for his previous life as a small-town litigator in Jamestown, New York. A solitary worker by nature, Jackson did not relish the collegiate aspects of the court, and his influence was therefore limited. "Jackson was nominally gregarious, active, fun-loving, witty pleasant–but at the same time, he was remote," White tells Modern Law Library's host Lee Rawles. "In some ways, his gregariousness was a barrier to maybe a closer understanding of him." But as a litigator and as a justice, Jackson made important historical contributions. One major such contribution was in establishing the format and location of the post-World War II international military tribunals of Nazi leaders, now known as the Nuremberg Trials. Jackson took a leave of absence from the U.S. Supreme Court to be the country's lead negotiator as the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union debated how tribunals would take place. He then served as the United States' chief prosecutor. White and Rawles also discuss the roadblocks that have prevented Jackson from being better known in legal history; how Justice Felix Frankfurter tried to protect Jackson's post-death legacy; and Jackson's controversial cross-examination of Nazi politician Hermann Goering. In honor of the Olympics, White (who has written books on baseball and soccer) also shares his perspective on the benefits that athletics brings to lawyers.

The Federal Judicial Center describes itself as “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government.” Yet it has recently come under scrutiny for its release of a new Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which critics argue departs from the judiciary’s traditional role as a neutral arbiter. In particular, the Manual’s inclusion of a “climate science” section which advances an ideological narrative rather than provide neutral guidance.Is the Center’s Report putting a thumb on the scale by taking sides on contested climate science questions and, through official manuals and guidance materials, attempting to shape how judges are instructed to evaluate disputed questions before cases are even heard? And is the Report compatible with the judge’s duty to say what the law is, not what it should be? Featuring:Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLCC; former Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnellCarrie Campbell Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia

Ken Starr's involvement on Jeffrey Epstein's legal team marked a decisive turning point in how Epstein was treated by the justice system. As a former U.S. Solicitor General and a figure deeply embedded in elite legal and political circles, Ken Starr brought instant credibility and institutional weight to Epstein's defense. His presence signaled to prosecutors that Epstein was not just another criminal defendant but someone backed by establishment power capable of applying pressure at the highest levels. Starr's role was not merely symbolic. He was instrumental in shaping the posture of Epstein's legal strategy, helping frame Epstein as a privileged offender deserving extraordinary consideration rather than a serial abuser running a trafficking operation. That framing mattered, because it subtly shifted negotiations away from accountability and toward accommodation.By lending his reputation to Epstein, Starr helped tilt the balance in negotiations with federal prosecutors in Epstein's favor, culminating in outcomes that defied normal prosecutorial standards. The now-infamous non-prosecution agreement did not emerge in a vacuum. It was the product of aggressive lawyering by figures like Starr who understood how to exploit discretion, personal relationships, and institutional risk aversion inside the Justice Department. With Starr involved, the case ceased to be about victims and evidence and became a political and reputational problem the government wanted to make disappear. His participation helped normalize a result that insulated Epstein from federal charges, protected unnamed co-conspirators, and ensured Epstein faced minimal consequences. In doing so, Starr did not just defend a client. He helped demonstrate how elite legal power can bend the justice system until it breaks in favor of the well-connected.to contacat me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

New York unlawfully forced health care workers to choose between their livelihoods and their religious convictions. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Greg Brady talked to Michael Kerzner, York Centre MP & Ontario Solicitor General, about his recent letter to Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw and what it signals about policing challenges in Toronto today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rachel Maddow hosts a special conversation with guests from her "Burn Order" podcast, live from the Orpheum Theater in Los Angeles to discuss the fight against the race-based incarceration of Japanese-Americans during World War II and how lessons from that episode in American history apply today. Want more of Rachel? Check out the "Rachel Maddow Presents" feed to listen to all of her chart-topping original podcasts.To listen to all of your favorite MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

# Trump Administration Court Battles: November 2025 UpdateHello listeners, and welcome back. We're diving straight into what's been happening in the courts surrounding the Trump administration, and there's quite a bit to unpack from just the past few days.Let's start with what happened on Wednesday, November fifth. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a major case that consolidated two separate matters into one consolidated case before the nation's highest court. President Trump's legal team, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer from the Department of Justice, faced off against respondents including V.O.S. Selections, Inc., represented by attorney Neal K. Katyal from Washington, D.C. State parties also got their moment, represented by Benjamin N. Gutman, the Solicitor General from Salem, Oregon. The Supreme Court gave the case a total of one hour for oral argument, which tells you how significant this matter is.This case got expedited treatment from the Supreme Court back in early September. The petitioners filed their motion to expedite on September third, and by September ninth, the Supreme Court had already granted both the motion to expedite and the petition for a writ of certiorari. That fast-tracked process meant the parties went through their briefing schedules compressed into just a matter of weeks rather than months. Opening briefs were due September nineteenth, response briefs came by October twentieth, and reply briefs followed by October thirtieth.Beyond the Supreme Court action, the Trump administration continues to face a flurry of legal challenges across the country. The Just Security litigation tracker shows dozens of cases filed against various Trump administration actions. Some cases involve civil liberties concerns related to executive actions targeting specific law firms. Other litigation focuses on immigration enforcement operations, with cases filed in places like Chicago, Illinois, following what the administration called Operation Midway Blitz in early September.There's also ongoing litigation concerning gender-related policies. Cases have been filed in Massachusetts and Maryland challenging executive orders that restrict gender-affirming care for individuals under nineteen years old. Additionally, a case closed earlier this year in New Jersey involved litigation over the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, though another related case in the Court of Federal Claims remains pending.Some executive orders have faced temporary blocks from courts. The litigation tracker notes that Democratic National Committee challenges to an election integrity executive order were temporarily blocked, as were challenges to certain actions against law firms and diversity equity and inclusion programs.The scale of litigation is remarkable. The Lawfare Media litigation tracker shows that a coalition of nonprofits and cities sued the Trump administration over suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November twenty twenty-five, demonstrating how these legal challenges span multiple policy areas and affect different populations.What's particularly noteworthy is the speed at which cases are moving through the courts and the breadth of legal challenges being mounted simultaneously across district courts, circuit courts, and now the Supreme Court level.Well listeners, that's what's been happening in the courts recently. Thanks so much for tuning in today. Be sure to come back next week for more updates on these developing legal battles. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more analysis and information, visit Quiet Please dot A I. Thanks for listening.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Welcome back to Quiet Please, where we break down the legal battles shaping America right now. If you've been following the news, you know Donald Trump's facing an unprecedented legal storm. Let me walk you through the major cases unfolding this week.First, there's the tariff case that just happened. On November fifth, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, a high-stakes dispute over tariff authority and government spending. The case consolidated two separate proceedings and got expedited treatment from the highest court in the land. D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General, argued for the Trump administration, while Neal K. Katyal represented the private parties challenging the government. The Supreme Court hasn't issued an opinion yet, but this case represents one of the most significant constitutional questions about presidential power over commerce and international trade that's come before the Court in years.But that's just the beginning. The Supreme Court's docket is absolutely packed with Trump administration cases. Listeners should know that over the past several months, we've seen what legal observers call a "shadow docket" explosion. The Court has already ruled on cases involving whether President Trump can fire officials at independent agencies like the Federal Reserve, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board. In case after case, the Court sided with the administration, though Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson have consistently dissented.Now, there's another major issue brewing. The Supreme Court is considering whether to hear cases challenging birthright citizenship. Trump has signaled his intent to end birthright citizenship through executive action, and the Court could announce as soon as December fifth whether it will take these cases on the merits. If they do, oral arguments could happen in early twenty twenty-six, with a decision by late June or early July.Meanwhile, at the state level, Trump was sentenced in January twenty twenty-five in the New York criminal case. According to court records from the New York courts system, he received sentencing on January tenth, twenty twenty-five. The case involved thirty-four felony counts, and while the specifics have been extensively covered, it remains a pivotal moment in American legal history where a sitting president faced criminal prosecution.The litigation tsunami continues beyond the Supreme Court. According to tracking data from organizations monitoring Trump administration lawsuits, there have been more than one hundred lawsuits filed against various Trump administration policies. These range from immigration enforcement actions to healthcare program suspensions. A coalition of nonprofits and cities sued the Trump administration over the suspension of nutrition assistance benefits in November twenty twenty-five.What's remarkable is the sheer volume and speed of these cases moving through the courts. We're watching constitutional questions that legal scholars thought were settled get reopened and reexamined. The power of the presidency, the independence of federal agencies, citizens' fundamental rights—all of it is in flux right now.Thank you for tuning in to Quiet Please. Come back next week for more updates on these developing cases. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

It's been a whirlwind few days in Washington, and if you've been following the court trials involving Donald Trump, you know the intensity hasn't let up one bit. Let me jump right into the heart of it, because November 2025 has unfolded with major courtroom drama that's kept the political world riveted.Just weeks ago, Donald Trump's legal teams found themselves before the Supreme Court. The docket for case 25-250, now consolidated with another major suit, set arguments for the first week of November—exactly when crowds gathered outside the Supreme Court building and the eyes of the nation shifted to DC. The consolidated cases stemmed from decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and involved Trump as petitioner, with V.O.S. Selections, Inc., and several states as respondents. For the federal government, arguments were delivered by D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General, while Neal K. Katyal spoke for the private parties and Benjamin N. Gutman for the state parties.These cases focused on conflicts arising from Trump administration executive orders and the use of federal authority. One hotly debated issue centered on the attempted federalization of the Oregon National Guard, a move contested on grounds of state law and constitutional authority. Lawfare's coverage pointed out the complexity: Judge Cobb's earlier opinion clarified federal authority but stopped short of granting the mission powers Trump's administration sought. As for the emergency motions, everything hinged on the pending Supreme Court decision involving Illinois v. Trump, keeping parts of these cases temporarily on hold.More controversy erupted just days before arguments, when a coalition of nonprofits and municipal governments sued the Trump administration for suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November 2025. As Lawfare reported, the litigation tracker was practically overflowing—with over two hundred seventy cases still awaiting rulings, legal challenges to Trump's executive actions flooded the judiciary.The tension ratcheted up further when, according to Politico, President Trump called for several Democratic lawmakers to be arrested and tried for “seditious behavior” after they released a video urging public protest. These remarks shocked Capitol Hill and fueled even fiercer political divisions while legal experts debated whether such accusations had any real standing under federal sedition laws.Just Security's own litigation tracker highlighted yet another legal wrinkle: a new policy from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, barring law firms from representing clients in active litigation against Trump administration policies. The American Bar Association responded swiftly with a federal suit, calling the policy a clear violation of legal norms and a blow to independent counsel rights.And, in an unexpected development, a federal court permanently blocked Trump's executive order to dismantle a federal agency for America's libraries, as the American Library Association announced last Friday. That ruling capped the week's legal rollercoaster and drew praise from advocates for public services.So, listeners, the court trials involving Donald Trump haven't just been about one issue—they've covered everything from the scope of federal authority to separation of powers, sedition, and executive overreach. Each ruling and every new filing continues to shape the legal landscape and will have lasting impacts on governance and American democratic norms.Thank you for tuning in. Make sure to come back next week for more updates on high-stakes court drama. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

We return to the tariff case and continue to hear from the justices and the advocates in their own voices from the oral argument.  This time, a 20 year old argument from Vik Amar takes center stage with apparent approval from several key justices, and several of the Court's female justices join forces to make life difficult for the Solicitor General.  We also review some of the emerging implications from the recent election, and a bill coming out of Illinois that takes its inspiration from a 40 year old argument made by Professor Amar. Part 2 of 2. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

# Trump Administration Court Battle: A Week of Legal DecisionsThe Trump administration faced a critical moment in federal court this week as one of its most significant legal challenges reached the Supreme Court. On November 5th, just nine days ago, the nation's highest court heard oral arguments in a consolidated case that has profound implications for presidential power and intellectual property law.The case, Trump v. VOS Selections, was heard before all nine justices, with arguments presented by D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General from the Department of Justice, alongside private counsel Neal K. Katyal and Benjamin N. Gutman, the Solicitor General from Salem, Oregon representing state interests. The Supreme Court set aside a full hour for oral argument, an unusually generous allocation that signals the case's importance.The legal journey to get here moved with extraordinary speed. The Trump administration filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on September 3rd and immediately moved to expedite consideration. Just six days later, on September 9th, the Supreme Court granted both the expedite motion and the petition itself, consolidating this case with another related matter. This kind of expedited review happens rarely and reflects the urgency both the Court and the administration saw in resolving the dispute.The underlying case originated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued a decision on August 29th. The Federal Circuit's ruling triggered the administration's appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the lower court's judgment. The case involves VOS Selections, a private company, as respondent, and the Supreme Court's decision in this matter could reshape how courts handle disputes between the executive branch and private entities.What makes this case particularly noteworthy is the involvement of multiple amicus briefs filed in support of the government's position. These friend-of-the-court briefs came from organizations including Advancing American Freedom, signaling that interests beyond just the Trump administration viewed the case's outcome as consequential for broader questions of presidential authority.The Supreme Court carefully managed the briefing schedule. Opening briefs on the merits were due September 19th, amicus curiae briefs by September 23rd, response briefs by October 20th, additional amicus briefs by October 24th, and reply briefs by October 30th. This compressed timeline compressed what typically takes many months into just eight weeks, allowing the Court to hear arguments in the first week of November and presumably move toward a decision relatively quickly.This case joins numerous other legal challenges confronting the Trump administration, which has faced litigation over various executive orders and policies. However, the VOS Selections case stands out for its rapid ascent to the Supreme Court and the consolidated nature of the litigation, suggesting that whatever the Court decides will likely have effects far beyond the immediate parties involved.As we head into the final weeks of 2025, listeners should expect that the Supreme Court will issue its decision in this case in the coming months, and that decision could significantly alter the landscape of executive power and business regulation.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more coverage of the Trump administration's legal battles and their implications for American governance. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more analysis and updates, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Today is November 12, 2025, and the nation's attention lately has been glued to the explosive court battles swirling around Donald Trump—courtrooms packed, legal fireworks almost daily. Just last week, on November 5, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in the consolidated Trump v. V.O.S. Selections case, a landmark proceeding. This latest legal clash traces back to the Federal Circuit's decision at the end of August, and the intensity ramped up quickly when the Trump team filed a writ of certiorari in early September, pushing for an expedited review. The Supreme Court agreed to speed things up, setting the stage for arguments early this month.Picture the scene: inside the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the federal government from Washington, D.C., while Neal K. Katyal—always composed, representing private parties—stood at the opposite lectern. Multistate briefs and amicus filings came from unexpected quarters, including the State of Oregon's Solicitor General, Benjamin Gutman, who stepped into the spotlight for the state parties. The courtroom was buzzing, not only with media and legal analysts, but also with advocates and critics dissecting every argument about presidential authority and the power to impose—and potentially rescind—controversial tariffs and executive orders.On the streets outside, the talk was all about how these court decisions could shift the fate of Trump's economic legacy. According to Politico, even as tariffs sit on trial, negotiations between U.S. and foreign trade partners are pressing forward, and there's widespread speculation that Trump, regardless of what the justices decide, may try to reimpose tariffs in some other fashion. The policies at stake have high global stakes but also direct impact on American businesses and workers.Simultaneously, civil rights litigation continues to dog Trump's latest tenure. The Just Security litigation tracker highlights cases filed over the past year—like National Association of the Deaf v. Trump, where the administration's move to stop ASL interpreters at public press briefings spurred a lawsuit that's now awaiting a court decision. There's also a series of cases against executive orders targeting law firms and advocacy organizations, raising alarms about overreach and potential retaliation against anyone opposing Trump's policies. Groups like the ACLU are still in the fight. The Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration to enforce a highly contentious passport policy that critics—including the ACLU of Massachusetts—strongly oppose, calling it discriminatory.With so many cases running hot, questions about executive power, civil liberties, and the practical limits of presidential authority are in sharper focus than ever. Each ruling and hearing over these past few days seems to weigh not only on Trump himself, but also on the broader direction of U.S. democracy. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please Production, and for more, check out quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In addition to Trump's and MAGA's  election night shellacking, Trump had a historically bad week in courtrooms around America.  First Judge McConnell in Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction forcing Trump to fund infrastructure projects in Blue States; then Judge Immergut entered a preliminary injunction to block Trump's use of the National Guard on the streets of Oregon; then Federal Judge Currie ordered the turn over off all grand jury materials about Lindsey Halligan's role in prosecuting Trump's political rivals be turned over to her; then Judge McConnel (again) issued a temporary restraining order to ensure that 42 million Americans don't starve to death and Trump pay out $8 billion in funding asap.  Which brings us to the MAGA Supreme Court Justices looking their collective noses down at Trump's Solicitor General as they consider whether to overturn Trump's signature Tariff scheme.  No wonder Trump chickened out and failed to even show up in Court for the Supreme Court today as he had promised.  All this and so much more on the top rated Legal AF podcast with Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo. Support Our Sponsors: One Skin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LEGALAF at https://oneskin.co/hair #oneskinpod Fatty 15: Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to https://fatty15.com/LEGALAF and using code LEGALAF at checkout. Honey Love: Save 20% Off Honeylove by going to honeylove.com/LEGALAF! #honeylovepod Trust and Will: Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting https://trustandwill.com/LEGALAF Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Yesterday, Benjamin Gutman made his first appearance on the biggest stage possible. In his role as solicitor general of Oregon, Gutman argued in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court on behalf of a coalition of a dozen states that sued over the president’s signature tariff trade strategy. The states argued the U.S. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose and collect taxes under the U.S. Constitution. Gutman joins us to talk about the experience.

AlabamaSen. Tuberville calls election of communist muslim in NYC a disgraceCongressman Moore talks more about government shutdownAG Steve Marshall appoints Barret Bowdre as next Solicitor General for ALMontgomery city council passes resolution that re: mayoral contractsVoters in Elmore County vote no on proposed property tax increaseOrange Beach mayor concerned about gambling coming to his cityGovernor Ivey declares it Veteran's Week ahead of November 11thNationalPresident Trump reaches the one year mark since 2024 presidential electionNYC Fire Commissioner resigns one day after election of Zohran MamdaniTransportation secretary will reduce flight capacity in 40 airports due to government shutdownCalifornia GOP sues the state for its new congressional map 11 victims killed in KY as result of UPS Cargo plane crash and explosionMayor of Minneapolis re-elected, challenger Somalian radical Omar Fateh loses

The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing to cut 10 percent of flights at 40 major airports as early as Friday if the government shutdown continues. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the move will ease pressure on air traffic controllers, who haven't been paid in weeks. The cancellations are expected to disrupt many Americans' travel plans, but Duffy said safety remains the top priority.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he's very optimistic about the Supreme Court case that is weighing the legality of President Donald Trump's global tariff case. Bessent attended oral arguments at the high court on Wednesday. He said that the Solicitor General presented strong and persuasive arguments, while, in his opinion, the plaintiff had fundamentally misunderstood and misrepresented Trump's tariff goals. The president has repeatedly emphasized that without the tariffs, the United States would have no national security.Seven New York City firefighters are recovering after a car explosion in the Bronx sent a massive fireball into the sky. Officials say the blast happened on Wednesday night after a trash fire spread to several vehicles. Fire Chief John Esposito says five firefighters suffered burns to their hands and faces. Three remain hospitalized with serious injuries.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.