Podcast appearances and mentions of Sonia Sotomayor

We're back from vacation and chipping away at the summer backlog. Before the substance: listeners weigh in on our AI-generated cover art, Claude's new prediction scorecard grades our respective forecasting records, and Justices Kagan and Barrett take the Court's budget request — and some docket-terminology talk — to Congress. Then we spend the rest of the show on T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, in which the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, pronounced dead in the Green Bag two decades ago, proves alive enough to reach state-court judgments still on appeal. We try to figure out what the doctrine actually is, whether § 1257 or § 1331 is doing the work, and why the Court's committed formalists split down the middle. Along the way: insider trading as a University of Chicago virtue, a concurrence that may be playing a long game on federal habeas, and a dissent that's "exactly correct and not the law."Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: back from vacation, episode 26 of the season, chasing the all-time record of 29[00:01:15] Listener verdict on the AI back-catalog covers — Proximity Mines in the Facility gets its due, and no, we're not commissioning an artist[00:03:33] Will's Kant remarks draw "especially strenuous criticism"; he declines to recant[00:04:38] Claude's prediction scorecard grades the back catalog: Dan 82.4%, Will 71.2% — hedged singles vs. high-variance swings[00:07:06] Are prediction markets just gambling? Kalshi, Manifold, and insider trading as a University of Chicago virtue[00:10:16] Justices Kagan and Barrett testify before the Appropriations Committees: the security budget, life with a detail, and a remembrance of Lindsey Graham[00:14:03] Kagan on the "terminology nightmare" — shadow vs. emergency vs. interim docket — and why the shadow docket "is not currently shadowy"[00:16:14] The main event: T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, a fed-courts-class case if there ever was one[00:17:44] Doctrine origins: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic's attempt to bury them, and Sam Bray's Green Bag obituary[00:20:35] What Rooker actually held: no bill in equity to void a state judgment — only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state courts[00:25:17] The unusual lineup: Sotomayor writing for Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson; Barrett in dissent with the Chief, Kagan, and Gorsuch[00:28:53] Where does the doctrine come from — § 1257 exclusivity, § 1331 "original" jurisdiction, or something constitutional about "inferior" courts?[00:38:42] Will's alternative: you're either in appellate mode or collateral estoppel mode — and the Full Faith and Credit Act already covers this[00:42:44] The Thomas concurrence: Rooker "correct as an original matter" — and footnote 4's possible long game on federal habeas[00:46:34] The puzzle of the missing Feldman: Thomas's concurrence is almost entirely about Rooker[00:48:06] The Barrett dissent — "exactly correct and not the law" — and Rooker-Feldman given an inch[00:51:49] What goes in the fed courts supplement, and whether Hart and Wechsler needs a bigger Rooker-Feldman chapter again[00:53:25] Sign-off: an efficient episode; browse the back-catalog art at dividedargument.comRelevant linksCasesT.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. — slip opinionRooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908)Commentary & articlesSamuel Bray, "Rooker Feldman (1923–2006)," 9 Green Bag 2d (2006) — the obituaryWilliam Baude, "The Interim Docket" (SSRN, forthcoming U. Chi. L. Rev.) — now with Justice Kagan's terminology testimony incorporatedDavid Lat, "Justices Kagan And Barrett Are The Spokeswomen SCOTUS Needs Right Now" (Original Jurisdiction)SCOTUSblog, "Justices Kagan and Barrett testify before Congress"OtherThe custom back-catalog episode art — tell us your favorites

We picked two immigration decisions from the same day over the transgender-sports case because — Dan's protests notwithstanding — that's where the interesting law is. In Mullin v. Doe the Court lets the administration terminate temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria, holding the statute's no-judicial-review bar swallows the procedural challenges and that the equal-protection claim fails on the merits — with a genuinely odd move: skipping the jurisdictional question the way Steel Co. says you can't. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado a fight about asylum-metering collapses onto a single preposition — whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States — and the majority says no. Along the way: brown M&Ms and Van Halen riders, whether Congress can strip review of constitutional claims without turning in a circle and sprinkling salt on the ground, Bolling v. Sharpe as a candidate for the worst decision ever, and why there's no White Somalia to run a controlled experiment.Highlights[00:00:28] Opening: hype music, and listening to your own podcast to get in the mood[00:01:42] Building a live-show rider with Claude Code, and the Van Halen brown-M&Ms test as a safety checklist[00:03:18] Blogging origin stories — GeoCities, Movable Type, the death of Google Reader, a ransomed domain[00:06:26] Why we date-stamp episodes; the “too many episodes” complaint[00:07:27] Today's slate: two June 25 immigration decisions, Mullin v. Doe and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, chosen over the trans-sports case[00:10:37] A digression on the opinion's broken line spacing on page 1[00:12:11] Mullin v. Doe setup: TPS, the consultation-and-review procedures, and the “no judicial review of any determination” bar[00:19:07] Does the bar reach the procedures or just the bottom line? The Court says the whole thing[00:24:32] Can Congress strip review of constitutional claims — or must it first “turn in a circle and sprinkle salt on the ground”?[00:25:01] Dan on his and Alan Trammell's The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping[00:31:42] Steel Co. and jurisdiction-first — and the Court's strange skip of it on the interim docket, which costs it Gorsuch and Barrett on that Part[00:38:54] Why leave a hard jurisdictional question unwritten — the stare-decisis dodge and the “do you write on the shadow docket” dilemma[00:42:17] The multiply-the-probabilities problem (70% × 70%), by way of the Section 3 disqualification argument[00:44:04] The merits: Trump v. Hawaii redux, and Alito's very ginger, sanitized recounting of the President's statements about Haitians[00:48:21] Arlington Heights, race as a motivating factor, and the burden-shift the Court blends into one step[00:52:32] The Thomas concurrence: equal protection doesn't bind the federal government — Bolling v. Sharpe and Primus's Bolling Alone[00:59:27] The Kagan dissent: the review bar reaches only the bottom line, so the failure-to-consult claim survives[01:03:34] Why there's no perfect test case — no White Somalia — so the burden of proof is the ballgame[01:04:42] Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: metering, and whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States[01:08:31] IIRIRA swapped “arrives at” for “arrives in” — did changing the preposition change the meaning?[01:12:16] Dueling everyday-language examples: the running back, the mailbox, and Sotomayor's Penn Station / DCA / Golden Gate / movie-theater hypos[01:15:44] The Chicago Skyway's “Now arriving in Indiana” signs — “we say no thanks”[01:18:28] The dissent's practical stakes: perverse incentives to cross illegally, the SS St. Louis, and the Footnote 5 vs. Footnote 4 spat[01:20:51] Mootness and the voluntary-cessation exception; Jackson's advisory-opinion dissent and the Chatrie citation she just missed[01:24:13] The second Thomas concurrence: the § 1252 injunction bar (Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez) and an inherent Article II power to expel — “milling around”[01:26:18] The “an uniform rule” indefinite-article tangent; Conor Clarke on how we can't pronounce anything[01:28:06] Sign-off: Dan's two-week vacation, and thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute and SCOTUSblogRelevant linksCasesMullin v. Doe — slip opinion (No. 25-1083, consolidated with Trump v. Miot; TPS termination for Haiti and Syria)Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — slip opinion (No. 25-5; asylum metering and “arrives in the United States”)Commentary & articlesDaniel Epps & Alan M. Trammell, “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (Columbia L. Rev. 2023) — the argument that jurisdiction stripping is a far weaker tool than advertisedRichard Primus, “Bolling Alone” (Columbia L. Rev. 2004) — after Bolling v. Sharpe, the Court has never actually invalidated federal discrimination against Black plaintiffs at the CourtHenry Monaghan, “Marbury and the Administrative State” (1983) — how a court “says what the law is” when the law tells it to defer

In breaking news, E Jean Carroll, Trump's sex abuse survivor, should be getting the $5.8 million dollars he owes her today, as his Emergency application to the Second Circuit last night to block the payment was DENIED. Popok explains that Trump can try to lob in a hand grenade/Hail Mary to the US Supreme Court, but they just ruled against him in the case 9-0, less than 2 weeks ago, and he's going to have to go through Justice Sotomayor first! 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 Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School 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 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled on several issues related to immigration policy. While the court narrowly preserved birthright citizenship, it issued other rulings that will put an untold number of people in danger. One ruling, Mullin v Al Otro Lado, upheld the federal government's policy of turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the US-Mexico border—a policy also known as “metering”—hollowing out the right to asylum enshrined in both domestic and international law. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor referenced the St. Louis, the ship of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany turned away from the US, whose passengers were mostly killed in the Holocaust: “Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past. Yet if the refugees on the M. S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority's interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto US soil,” she said.In another ruling, Mullin v Doe, the Supreme Court granted the president the power to end the Temporary Protected Status program, or TPS, which has allowed vetted and eligible immigrants to live and work legally in the US if they cannot return safely to their countries. Justice Samuel Alito, in his majority opinion, said courts do not have a say in what the president and the Department of Homeland Security decide; the president can end TPS for Haitians and Syrians without judicial review. He also rejected a separate claim brought by Haitians that the move to deport them was based in racial prejudice. TPS has been in effect since 1990. There are 350,000 Haitians who have been in the US legally under TPS, and whose lives have now been thrown into chaos.In our spring issue, we published a prescient piece by immigration reporter Tanvi Misra about the death of asylum, and the ways that its decline is a dire portent for democracy itself. Asylum, Misra reminds us, is a “place-based right” designed to prioritize human life over national borders: As soon as an endangered person steps foot onto a country's soil, they “are entitled to that body's protection,” regardless of whether they crossed with permission. This is exactly the principle that has been undermined with this recent ruling, which prevents people from arriving and making an application. As this ruling suggests, for as long as asylum has existed in the US, so have efforts to weaken it. It has been issued selectively and on racial grounds—much more easily been granted to German-speaking Protestants than to Jews escaping the Holocaust; readily offered to Cubans fleeing Castro but not to Haitians fleeing the US-supported Duvalier dictatorship.Misra's essay tells us that this tactic of denying landfall to migrants as a way of denying them asylum has gone into overdrive in the past decades as border agents try to intercept asylum seekers earlier and earlier in their journeys. In the process, the US border has, Misra says, “not just hardened, but expanded”—into Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, and beyond. Under Trump 2.0, the border has also spilled inward, into LA, Chicago, Minneapolis, and all the other places where border agents are chasing down asylum seekers and, increasingly, all migrants.In this episode of On the Nose, recorded in mid-June before the Supreme Court rulings, Misra speaks about these grievous attacks on asylum with John Washington, a staff reporter at Lookout and the author of the forthcoming book, How to Close a Camp: Dispatches from the Fight Against Immigrant Detention, as well as The Case for Open Borders and The Dispossessed: A Story of Asylum at the US-Mexico Border.This conversation was originally a live membership event. Become a member so you don't miss the next one!Thanks to Jesse Brenneman for editing and to Nathan Salsburg for the use of his song “VIII (All That Were Calculated Have Passed).”Media Mentioned and Further Reading“The Death of Asylum,” Tanvi Misra, Jewish CurrentsHow to Close a Camp: Dispatches from the Fight Against Immigrant Detention by John WashingtonThe Case for Open Borders by John WashingtonThe Dispossessed: A Story of Asylum at the US-Mexico Border by John WashingtonThe Suppliants by AeschylusOedipus at Colonus by Sophocles“The principle of non-refoulement,” European Union Agency for Asylum1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol “A History of Haitian Discrimination by United States Immigration Policy,” US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants“‘Metering' of Asylum Seekers Is Bad Policy, Bad Law, and Bad for the Border,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, American Immigration Council“US flight carrying deported migrants lands in Central African Republic,” France24“What Are Third-Country Removals? Understanding Their Use In U.S. Immigration Policy,” American Immigration Council“Broader Crises,” Tanvi Misra, The Baffler“The Unraveling of Afghan Asylum,” Tanvi Misra, New York Review of BooksTranscript forthcoming.

The big opinions are coming fast and furious as the Term ends. This episode, we take on two related cases from the penultimate opinion drop day: Trump v. Slaughter, which overrules Humphrey's Executor and clears away for-cause protection for the independent agencies, alongside its interim-docket companion Trump v. Cook, where the very same logic somehow spares the Federal Reserve. The big question: if the President can fire an FTC commissioner at will, what actually makes the Fed different — is "history" doing the work, or is the Court just saving the bond markets? Along the way: Heidegger's "always already," whether the metaphor of a living tree is consistent with originalism, a Goldilocks definition of "cause," the Chief leaning on his own unworkable precedents, the Ex parte Young mystery that keeps escaping the Court's grasp, and the first appearance of "the interim docket" in the U.S. Reports.Highlights[00:00:18] The penultimate opinion day — four down, four to go[00:00:50] The last-day pileup, and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance case still pending[00:03:25] A confession: staircase wit, and the metaphor Will wishes he'd used[00:04:27] The living tree as an originalist — and the petrified-tree rejoinder[00:06:01] The new custom-cover workflow, and what Claude still isn't allowed to write[00:07:00] The day's four opinions: Cook, Slaughter, Chatrie, and Watson v. RNC[00:09:50] Is the Court strategic about opinion timing? A walk back through OT21's last days[00:13:55] Slaughter before Cook: the general rule before the exception[00:15:08] "Humphrey's Executor has always already been overruled" — by way of continental philosophy[00:17:36] Slaughter: the question, Humphrey's Executor, and the road from Morrison v. Olson through Seila Law[00:22:12] Why presidents mostly haven't tested removal — and whether this shifts the equilibrium[00:25:29] Walking the opinion: Roberts for the Court, the Thomas non-join, a Sotomayor (not Kagan) dissent[00:27:30] The Decision of 1789, the history fight, and the "good arguments on both sides" that made Will a "witless hack"[00:33:19] Part III-B's reserved questions and the Gorsuch concurrence's non-delegation wish list[00:43:06] Cook: procedurally on the interim docket, and why it comes out the other way[00:46:00] The Chief's history tour — the Bank of North America, Hamilton, and an accomplished yachtsman[00:49:00] The Fed as the "third bank"; Bamzai & Nielson and the monetary-vs-regulatory problem[00:50:25] The chain of moves: reviewability, a Goldilocks "cause," and the equity remedy[00:53:11] Footnote 2 and the Ex parte Young mystery — Armstrong, CASA, and Bivens[00:58:41] Process not received: a Truth Social post isn't enough, and what Cook gets next[01:00:54] "The interim docket" enters the U.S. Reports[01:01:52] The separate writings: Kavanaugh (save the economy), Jackson (equities), Thomas's solo dissent[01:04:45] Alito-Gorsuch and Barrett: hard questions, and skepticism of a carve-out defended "for secret reasons"[01:11:26] Sign-off: if there's a long delay before the next episode, it's because we've lost removal protectionRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Slaughter — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisTrump v. Cook — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisChatrie v. United States — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisWatson v. Republican National Committee — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisCommentary & articlesAditya Bamzai & Aaron L. Nielson, "Article II and the Federal Reserve" — the leading qualified defense of Fed independence (Cornell L. Rev.)Samuel L. Bray, "Remedies in the Officer Removal Cases" — relied on by the Cook majority on the equity-remedy question (Journal of Legal Analysis); draft/announcement on the Divided Argument blogWilliam Baude, "How To Save The Federal Reserve" — Will's prior take on preserving Fed independence under the removal cases

This Day in Legal History: Revenue Act of 1862On this day in legal history, July 1, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862, one of the most important financing measures of the Civil War. The Union war effort required enormous amounts of money, and Congress could no longer rely only on tariffs, loans, and traditional sources of federal revenue. The act created the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the direct predecessor of today's Internal Revenue Service.This new office gave the federal government an administrative structure for assessing and collecting taxes across the country. The law also expanded the federal government's role in the financial lives of ordinary Americans. It imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on incomes above $10,000. Although modest by modern standards, this was a major shift in American tax law because it treated income itself as a source of federal revenue.The act also included taxes on goods, licenses, businesses, and other transactions, helping create a broader national tax system. Its purpose was practical and urgent: to raise the money needed to preserve the Union. But its legal significance went beyond the battlefield. The Revenue Act of 1862 helped normalize the idea that the federal government could collect taxes directly from individuals. The Civil War income tax was later allowed to expire, but the machinery of federal tax administration had been built.Decades later, the Sixteenth Amendment would give Congress clearer constitutional authority to impose a national income tax. July 1, 1862, therefore marks a turning point in the legal history of federal taxation and the growth of national administrative power.The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is invalid. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present still meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Roberts wrote that the Constitution makes those children citizens at birth because they are born on U.S. soil and are subject to U.S. law.The executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, never took effect because federal courts blocked it while lawsuits moved forward. Earlier, the Supreme Court had limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but the legal challenges to the order continued through class-based and case-specific proceedings.The Court's majority relied heavily on the history of birthright citizenship, including English common law, the purpose of the 14th Amendment after Dred Scott, and the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Roberts rejected the administration's argument that citizenship should depend on whether a child's parents had permanent allegiance or domicile in the United States.Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the order was invalid, but he based his reasoning on federal statute rather than the Constitution. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented in different ways, arguing that the majority misread the 14th Amendment's history or failed to address important limits on birthright citizenship.Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court ruled that Idaho and West Virginia may enforce laws limiting girls' and women's school sports teams to athletes the states classify as biologically female. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the main opinion, saying the laws do not violate Title IX or the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.The Court was unanimous that the challenged laws do not violate Title IX, but the justices split over the constitutional issue, especially as applied to Becky Pepper-Jackson, the West Virginia student at the center of one case. Kavanaugh reasoned that Title IX permits schools to have separate teams based on sex and that, when the law was enacted, “sex” referred to biological sex. He also said states have important interests in safety and competitive fairness, and that courts should not be required to create individualized exceptions for athletes who have taken puberty blockers or hormones. The decision reversed lower-court rulings that had blocked Idaho and West Virginia from enforcing their bans.Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority and wrote separately to emphasize his view that sex is binary and biological. Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote separately, focusing on the idea that Title IX, as a funding statute, must give schools clear notice of any conditions attached to federal money. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed that West Virginia's law did not violate Title IX but dissented on the constitutional question. Sotomayor argued that the Court should have allowed more factual development on whether Pepper-Jackson, who had not gone through male puberty, was actually similarly situated to cisgender girls for athletic purposes.Court rules that states can exclude transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports teams | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court declined to hear Cathy Harris's appeal after lower courts allowed President Trump to remove her from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Harris, a Democratic member and former chair of the board, had challenged her firing under a law that limited removal of board members to cases of inefficiency, neglect, or misconduct. The Court's refusal came one day after it ruled 6-3 that similar removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members were unconstitutional. Because Merit Systems Protection Board members had nearly identical protections, Harris's case was strongly affected by that new ruling.The same appeals court decision that rejected Harris's claim also upheld Trump's firing of Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. The Merit Systems Protection Board is especially important because it hears appeals from federal employees who have been disciplined or fired. Harris warned that the decision weakens the board and threatens the independence of the civil service system. Her removal had temporarily left the three-member board without enough members to decide certain cases, though a later Senate confirmation restored a quorum. The ruling may also affect other lawsuits brought by officials Trump removed from independent agencies. More broadly, the decision gives the White House greater authority over agencies that were originally designed to have some protection from direct political control.After FTC ruling, US Supreme Court turns away labor board member fired by Trump | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

June 30, 2026, 5pm; Despite today's Supreme Court ruling being a clear win for the pro-democracy side of the aisle, the ruling was much closer than it looks at first glance. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other 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.

June 30, 2026, 4pm; The nation's highest court upheld the principle that almost everyone who is born on American soil is considered an American citizen.  In doing so, the court overturned Donald Trump's executive order, which would have eliminated birthright citizenship as we know it.  For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other 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.

Today was not “Trump becomes king.” That's too simple, too tidy, and frankly too flattering to the man currently dry-humping a football he doesn't realize is on a leash.On this episode of We Saw the Devil, Robin breaks down the Supreme Court's decision day and the story most of the coverage is already getting wrong: Trump did gain power, yes. But the Court gained something bigger. It kept the keys.The centerpiece is Trump v. Slaughter, where the Supreme Court torched a ninety-one-year-old rule protecting independent agency officials from being fired just because the president finds them annoying, inconvenient, or insufficiently obedient. That decision did not just weaken the FTC. It cracked open the entire independent-agency structure and dragged the unitary executive theory out of the Federalist Society basement and into the law of the land.But the real twist is this: the Court did not simply hand Trump a crown. It handed him a lease.From Trump v. Cook, where the Court blocked his attempted firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook for now, to the mail-in ballot ruling, to E. Jean Carroll's surviving verdict, to the Medicaid work requirement lawsuit, the pattern is the same. The Court is not retreating. It is positioning itself as the final landlord of the executive branch. Trump got more power. The Court kept control.This episode covers:The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. SlaughterThe end of the ninety-one-year protection from Humphrey's ExecutorWhy independent agencies like the FTC, FCC, SEC, and NLRB are now in dangerThe unitary executive theory and how a once-fringe legal idea became majority doctrineWhy Trump v. Cook is not the clean “Trump loss” people want it to beHow the Court protected Lisa Cook while keeping the door open for future Fed fightsThe mail-in ballot ruling and why the win still comes with a warning labelE. Jean Carroll's verdict surviving Trump's latest appealThe new Medicaid work requirement fight and how bureaucracy becomes a weaponSotomayor's dissent, “chaos will follow,” and the undefined exceptions that give the Court even more powerWhat is still coming tomorrow: birthright citizenship, transgender athlete bans, and campaign financeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-unfiltered-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilRobin's Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/robin_wstdTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.TikTok: tiktok.com/@wesawthedevilpolitics

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment while dissenting in part. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Neil Gorsuch. The court grounded its decision in the historical context of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, tracing the language back to English common law, the Dred Scott decision and its widespread condemnation, Attorney General Edward Bates' wartime opinion on citizenship, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the court's prior precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Hawk connects the executive order directly to Stephen Miller's documented stated goal of an America populated almost entirely by people who look like him, and explains why birthright citizenship was the primary legal mechanism the administration intended to use to strip citizenship from Black and brown Americans descended from earlier generations born in the United States. He closes by noting that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the court, and what that means for the 2026 midterm Senate races in Texas and Maine if either justice resigns under a Republican-controlled Senate. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss new developments regarding the Epstein Files Transparency Act following a lawsuit by Katie Phang and the future of the case as it heads to appeal.  Then, the #Sisters review Justice Alito's recent authorship of immigration rulings affecting TPS and asylum seekers, as well as the dissents by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.  They also explain the power of dissents against impactful majority decisions, how they can be used as a tool for future change, and the constitutional implications of federal overreach in the states.Remember to send in audio questions to SistersInLaw@politicon.com for the #Sisters to answer on their new companion podcast, SistersInLaw Sidebar!  It airs Wednesdays wherever you normally get your podcasts!Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt, Mini Tote, and other #SistersInLaw gear at politicon.com/merch! Additional #SistersInLaw ProjectsCheck out Jill's Politicon YouTube Show: Just The FactsCheck out Kim's Newsletter: The GavelJoyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available, and for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here. Barb is going on a book tour!  You can also pre-order Barb's new book, The Fix. Her first book, Attack From Within, is now in paperback. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on BlueskyGet your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merchWEBSITE & TRANSCRIPTEmail: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcastGet text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon. Mentioned By The #SistersPre-order Barb's new book, The Fix, and get tickets for her upcoming book tour!Support This Week's SponsorsTumble: Machine Washable Rugs, Made Better. For a limited time only, our listeners get 10% off + freeshipping at tumbleliving.com/SISTERS #Tumble #adFlamingo:Our listeners get the Flamingo Starter Set for just $7 at https://www.shopflamingo.com/SISTERSLola Blankets:Get 40% off select Lola Blankets products at Lolablankets.com by using code SISTERS atcheckout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets.Mill:Try Mill risk-free for 90 days and get $75 off at mill.com/SISTERS and use code SISTERS at checkout.ASPCA:To explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com/sistersThe ASPCA® is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business ofinsurance. For terms and conditions, visit: https://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/more-info/state-documents-and-sample-policies/. Products are underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company (NAIC #26581), or United States Fire Insurance Company (NAIC #21113) and distributed by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd.Get More From The #SistersInLawJoyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | Civil Discourse Substack | MSNBC | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable”Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTubeKimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design PodcastBarb McQuade: barbaramcquade.com | Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America | The Fix

June 25, 2026; 4pm: Nicolle Wallace and guests discuss the Supreme Court's decision to upend the asylum system as we know it. In a 6-3 decision, with the 3 liberal justices dissenting, the court decided to let Donald Trump functionally end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of refugees from Haiti and Syria. Later, Nicolle covers a major win for voting rights just ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh To listen to this show and other MS NOW podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other 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.

In this exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today's truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that's marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS. Later: Why Justice Alito's rejoinder to Justice Sotomayor's dissent wasn't just a crappy birthday present, but also the latest breach of decorum at the high court.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also 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.

In this exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today's truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that's marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS. Later: Why Justice Alito's rejoinder to Justice Sotomayor's dissent wasn't just a crappy birthday present, but also the latest breach of decorum at the high court.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also 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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today's truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that's marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS. Later: Why Justice Alito's rejoinder to Justice Sotomayor's dissent wasn't just a crappy birthday present, but also the latest breach of decorum at the high court.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also 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.

The Supreme Court is reshaping America in real time, and today's rulings may be just the beginning. With several major decisions appearing to favor President Trump and even bigger cases still on the docket, what does this moment mean for the future of presidential power, civil rights, and the Constitution? Justice Sonia Sotomayor even said in her dissent, "more people will die." Tonight, Don is joined by a panel of legal experts to break down what the Court decided today, what's still to come, and why the remaining rulings could have consequences for years to come. This episode is brought to you by Shopify. See less carts go abandoned and more sales go with Shopify and their Shop Pay button.Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial today at https://SHOPIFY.COM/lemon This episode is sponsored by FFRF. Visit https://ffrf.us/don or text DON 511511 to join or learn more. Because freedom belongs to all of us. Text Fees May Apply This episode is brought to you by Helix. Go to https://helixsleep.com/don for 20% off Sitewide and 25% off Luxe Mattresses and 30% off Elite Mattresses This episode is sponsored by Incogni. Go to https://incogni.com/donlemon and use code donlemon for 60% off. Incogni HELPS wipe yourself from the Internet — they can't harm you if they can't find you. Click the link below to claim your 60% off and get your personal data off the market! Erase yourself from the internet Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Shelby County v. HolderOn this day in legal history, June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder, a major case on the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a 5–4 decision, the Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contained the formula used to decide which states and local governments were subject to federal oversight before changing their voting laws. That oversight system, known as preclearance, had required covered jurisdictions to get approval from the federal government before making changes to election rules. The purpose of preclearance was to stop discriminatory voting practices before they could affect an election. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, concluding that the coverage formula was based on outdated data and no longer reflected current conditions.The Court did not strike down preclearance itself, but without a valid coverage formula, the preclearance system was largely left without practical effect. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Ginsburg argued that Congress had created a strong record showing that voting discrimination still existed and that the law remained necessary. Her dissent included the now-famous warning that throwing out preclearance because it had worked was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” The decision had immediate consequences because several states that had previously been covered by the formula moved forward with voting-law changes soon after the ruling. Supporters of the decision viewed it as a limit on outdated federal control over state election systems. Critics saw it as a major weakening of one of the most effective civil-rights laws in American history. The case remains central to modern debates over voting access, election administration, federalism, and Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment.A federal judge has rejected the Trump administration's attempt to force New Jersey cities to comply with federal immigration enforcement demands. The ruling is a major victory for sanctuary cities and immigrants' rights advocates. Here's the context: Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These cities typically instruct their police departments not to ask people about immigration status during routine stops, and they decline to detain people solely based on federal immigration requests (called “detainer requests”) unless there's a warrant signed by a judge.The Trump administration argued that sanctuary city policies undermine immigration enforcement and violate federal law. The administration sued, claiming cities cannot refuse to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). New Jersey cities argued they have the right to set their own police practices and that cooperating with federal immigration enforcement diverts local police resources from public safety priorities. They also pointed out that when police are seen as working with immigration authorities, immigrant communities become afraid to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement, which makes the entire community less safe.Local police have limited resources. A city police officer has to decide whether to use their time investigating a robbery or helping federal immigration agents deport someone. Local communities have a right to prioritize local public safety. Moreover, if immigrant families fear that any contact with police will result in deportation, they won't report crimes, won't testify as witnesses, and crime will increase. The federal judge agreed with New Jersey. The court found that cities have the authority to set their own police practices and cannot be forced to participate in federal immigration enforcement, particularly when federal authorities can get judicial warrants if they believe someone should be detained.The ruling protects sanctuary city policies This decision affirms that local communities can set their own law enforcement priorities and aren't required to become extensions of federal immigration enforcement. It recognizes that immigrants are part of communities and that community safety depends on immigrants trusting local police. The ruling will likely inspire other sanctuary jurisdictions to defend their policies against federal challenges. It represents a significant pushback against the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.Judge tosses Trump administration's challenge to New Jersey cities' ‘sanctuary' policies | ReutersNew Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that police departments cannot keep their use of facial recognition technology entirely secret. The decision represents a significant victory for transparency in law enforcement. Here's what happened: Police departments have increasingly used facial recognition software to identify suspects by comparing surveillance video or photos to databases of mugshots and driver's license photos. The technology can help solve crimes, but it also raises serious concerns about accuracy, bias, and privacy. Civil liberties groups have argued that if police use facial recognition to investigate people, the public and defendants have a right to know about it.Transparency is especially important because facial recognition technology has known accuracy problems, particularly when identifying people of color. If a police department relies on facial recognition to identify a suspect, and that technology is biased or inaccurate, the defendant needs to know that to challenge the evidence in court. New Jersey police departments had been claiming that their use of facial recognition was a “trade secret” or “law enforcement technique” that they could keep secret. The New Jersey Supreme Court said no.If the government uses technology to investigate you, you have a constitutional right to know about it and to challenge it. You can't mount a proper defense if you don't know what evidence was used to identify you or how reliable that evidence is.The court found that transparency about police use of facial recognition is essential to the defendant's right to a fair trial and to public accountability. Facial recognition technology is too important and too prone to error for police to keep its use secret. This ruling sets a precedent that police departments cannot hide behind “trade secrets” to avoid disclosing their investigative methods. It opens the door to litigation challenging facial recognition evidence on grounds of accuracy and bias. It also signals that courts recognize the dangers of artificial intelligence and surveillance technology and will require transparency and accountability around their use.New Jersey court limits secrecy around police use of facial recognition tools | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to provide a detailed explanation for covering a mural at the Kennedy Center that depicts civil rights imagery and historical figures. The ruling centers on questions of censorship, government power, and artistic freedom.The Kennedy Center, a performing arts venue in Washington, D.C., displays a mural that includes imagery related to the civil rights movement and depicts various historical and cultural figures. The Trump administration decided to cover the mural with tarps, presumably because it objected to the political or social messaging of the artwork. Civil liberties groups and artists sued, arguing that covering the mural violated the First Amendment by suppressing speech and political expression. The Trump administration claimed it had legitimate reasons for covering the mural, though it didn't initially specify what those reasons were. The federal judge said the government cannot simply cover up art without explaining why.The First Amendment protects people's right to speak and express themselves, including through art. When the government covers up art or speech, it's engaging in “prior restraint”—stopping speech before it happens. Courts are extremely skeptical of prior restraint because the whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from censoring expression it dislikes. The government has to have a very good reason to suppress speech, and it has to be transparent about its reasons. The Kennedy Center mural at issue appears to have been covered by the administration for political reasons—it objected to the message. That's exactly the kind of censorship the First Amendment is designed to prevent. The judge's order requires the administration to explain its reasoning, which will allow the court to evaluate whether the government's stated reasons are legitimate or whether this is simply political censorship.This ruling protects artistic expression and prevents the government from secretly censoring art it dislikes. It affirms that the Kennedy Center's mural is protected speech, not just decoration. It also sends a message that when the government restricts speech or expression, it must be transparent and justify its actions in court. The case reflects broader concerns about executive power and the limits of what a president can do to suppress expression, art, or speech that the administration objects to.US judge orders Trump administration to explain tarp obscuring Kennedy Center facade | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

   Josh Hawley just will not stop misleading voters about this SF Giants Pride Night story.  Hawley got a letter back from MLB commish Rob Manfred and immediately fibbed with a post about what the letter says.  It's unreal he's doing this.  Hawley was wrong, this was not an MLB issue.  It was a Giants issue and I'd be thrilled if he went on the attack and found out what the Giants did.  But baseball has done nothing wrong and actually has a fine policy in place.     A far left judge born in Trinidad and worked for Sonia Sotomayor is the latest to stop President Trump with a ruling.  This tiime, the court rules the government cannot use it's own data bases to verify is a person is a citizen or not and eligible to vote.  This is nuts.    A new AI generated song and video called "Keir Starmer is a wanker" has gone viral, we'll play it for you.  Vandals at the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool are being detained.   In sports, Lionel Messi does it again for Argentina, this player is the best of all time.   OU was picked 14th in the SEC pre season baseball poll and wins the national title.  The SEC is officially now a baseball conference, not football.  A Golf Channel analyst calls Long Island golf fans a "stain on the game," and he's right.  The Royals get a great outing from Michael Wacha in a win over the Rays, a Sportscenter legend is retiring and an up and coming music star has been charged with a felony after destroying his hotel room.

Should Conversion Therapy Be Protected Speech? What Chiles v. Salazar Means for Conversion Therapy Bans and the Future of the Profession In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that a therapist's talk therapy is protected speech, putting state conversion therapy bans at risk. Curt Widhalm, LMFT, and Katie Vernoy, LMFT break down what the March 31, 2026 decision actually says, what it does not say, and what it means for therapists who work with LGBTQ+ clients. The Court did not call conversion therapy safe, effective, or ethical, and it did not make the practice mandatory. It treated talk therapy as speech rather than regulable conduct, and sent Colorado's ban back to the lower courts for stricter First Amendment review. Curt and Katie walk through the strict scrutiny test at the center of the case, the Kagan and Sotomayor concurrence, and Justice Jackson's dissent, then sit with the harder question: what happens to the profession when the state can no longer set a guardrail on harmful practice before harm has occurred. Released during Pride Month, this is a candid, values-forward conversation about protecting LGBTQ+ clients and practicing affirming, anti-conversion-therapy care out loud. In this episode, we discuss: - What the Chiles v. Salazar ruling does, and does not, change about conversion therapy bans - Why the Court treated talk therapy as protected speech instead of medical treatment - How the strict scrutiny test decided the case - Where the concurrence and the dissent point the profession next - Concrete ways to signal affirming, anti-conversion-therapy care in your practice Full show notes and resources: mtsgpodcast.com Join the Modern Therapist Community Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/mtsgpodcast Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/therapyreimagined Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Creative Credits Voice Over by DW McCann: https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/ Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano: https://groomsymusic.com/

A woman miscarries and is charged with murder. A new mother tests positive for a drug her hospital administers and loses custody of her newborn. Four women are convicted of horrific crimes against children they never touched, based on junk science and homophobia and spend nearly twenty years in prison before being exonerated. A queer teenager takes a photo of a child's diaper rash at work and is sentenced to 126 years. These cases are not aberrations. They are symptoms of a system that punishes women and queer people not for what they have done, but for who they are. In the United States, nearly three-quarters of all wrongly convicted women were convicted of crimes that never occurred at all. Valena Beety, co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project and award-winning legal scholar cited by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reveals how ordinary tragedies—a child's sudden death, a husband who dies in his sleep—are transformed by prosecutors into murders that never happened. These “no crime” convictions disproportionately target women and queer people, whose identities are recast as evidence of guilt through bias, junk science, and entrenched stereotypes. Drawing on devastating real-life cases, Professor Beety exposes how prosecutorial overreach, flawed forensic science, and cultural panic converge—and how fetal personhood laws, the fall of Roe v. Wade, and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation have dramatically expanded the reach of criminal law. What emerges is a chilling portrait of a legal system that increasingly criminalizes pregnancy outcomes, motherhood, and queer identity itself. Guest: A wrongful convictions litigator and former federal prosecutor, Valena Beety is the McKinney Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law and a co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project. Her coursebook The Wrongful Convictions Reader is used in classrooms nationwide to teach about wrongful convictions. Host: Dr. Christina Gessler is an academic writing coach and editor. She uses her Ph.D. in history to explore which stories we tell, and what happens to those we never tell. She is the creator, producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Reproductive Justice Stitching Freedom You're Doing It Wrong Witchcraft: A History In 13 Trials The Turnaway Study The Coroner's Silence Ghost in the Criminal Justice Machine Secrets of the Killing State Carceral Apartheid Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! Please join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 300+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A woman miscarries and is charged with murder. A new mother tests positive for a drug her hospital administers and loses custody of her newborn. Four women are convicted of horrific crimes against children they never touched, based on junk science and homophobia and spend nearly twenty years in prison before being exonerated. A queer teenager takes a photo of a child's diaper rash at work and is sentenced to 126 years. These cases are not aberrations. They are symptoms of a system that punishes women and queer people not for what they have done, but for who they are. In the United States, nearly three-quarters of all wrongly convicted women were convicted of crimes that never occurred at all. Valena Beety, co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project and award-winning legal scholar cited by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reveals how ordinary tragedies—a child's sudden death, a husband who dies in his sleep—are transformed by prosecutors into murders that never happened. These “no crime” convictions disproportionately target women and queer people, whose identities are recast as evidence of guilt through bias, junk science, and entrenched stereotypes. Drawing on devastating real-life cases, Professor Beety exposes how prosecutorial overreach, flawed forensic science, and cultural panic converge—and how fetal personhood laws, the fall of Roe v. Wade, and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation have dramatically expanded the reach of criminal law. What emerges is a chilling portrait of a legal system that increasingly criminalizes pregnancy outcomes, motherhood, and queer identity itself. Guest: A wrongful convictions litigator and former federal prosecutor, Valena Beety is the McKinney Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law and a co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project. Her coursebook The Wrongful Convictions Reader is used in classrooms nationwide to teach about wrongful convictions. Host: Dr. Christina Gessler is an academic writing coach and editor. She uses her Ph.D. in history to explore which stories we tell, and what happens to those we never tell. She is the creator, producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Reproductive Justice Stitching Freedom You're Doing It Wrong Witchcraft: A History In 13 Trials The Turnaway Study The Coroner's Silence Ghost in the Criminal Justice Machine Secrets of the Killing State Carceral Apartheid Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! Please join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 300+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

A woman miscarries and is charged with murder. A new mother tests positive for a drug her hospital administers and loses custody of her newborn. Four women are convicted of horrific crimes against children they never touched, based on junk science and homophobia and spend nearly twenty years in prison before being exonerated. A queer teenager takes a photo of a child's diaper rash at work and is sentenced to 126 years. These cases are not aberrations. They are symptoms of a system that punishes women and queer people not for what they have done, but for who they are. In the United States, nearly three-quarters of all wrongly convicted women were convicted of crimes that never occurred at all. Valena Beety, co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project and award-winning legal scholar cited by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reveals how ordinary tragedies—a child's sudden death, a husband who dies in his sleep—are transformed by prosecutors into murders that never happened. These “no crime” convictions disproportionately target women and queer people, whose identities are recast as evidence of guilt through bias, junk science, and entrenched stereotypes. Drawing on devastating real-life cases, Professor Beety exposes how prosecutorial overreach, flawed forensic science, and cultural panic converge—and how fetal personhood laws, the fall of Roe v. Wade, and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation have dramatically expanded the reach of criminal law. What emerges is a chilling portrait of a legal system that increasingly criminalizes pregnancy outcomes, motherhood, and queer identity itself. Guest: A wrongful convictions litigator and former federal prosecutor, Valena Beety is the McKinney Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law and a co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project. Her coursebook The Wrongful Convictions Reader is used in classrooms nationwide to teach about wrongful convictions. Host: Dr. Christina Gessler is an academic writing coach and editor. She uses her Ph.D. in history to explore which stories we tell, and what happens to those we never tell. She is the creator, producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Reproductive Justice Stitching Freedom You're Doing It Wrong Witchcraft: A History In 13 Trials The Turnaway Study The Coroner's Silence Ghost in the Criminal Justice Machine Secrets of the Killing State Carceral Apartheid Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! Please join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 300+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

A woman miscarries and is charged with murder. A new mother tests positive for a drug her hospital administers and loses custody of her newborn. Four women are convicted of horrific crimes against children they never touched, based on junk science and homophobia and spend nearly twenty years in prison before being exonerated. A queer teenager takes a photo of a child's diaper rash at work and is sentenced to 126 years. These cases are not aberrations. They are symptoms of a system that punishes women and queer people not for what they have done, but for who they are. In the United States, nearly three-quarters of all wrongly convicted women were convicted of crimes that never occurred at all. Valena Beety, co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project and award-winning legal scholar cited by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reveals how ordinary tragedies—a child's sudden death, a husband who dies in his sleep—are transformed by prosecutors into murders that never happened. These “no crime” convictions disproportionately target women and queer people, whose identities are recast as evidence of guilt through bias, junk science, and entrenched stereotypes. Drawing on devastating real-life cases, Professor Beety exposes how prosecutorial overreach, flawed forensic science, and cultural panic converge—and how fetal personhood laws, the fall of Roe v. Wade, and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation have dramatically expanded the reach of criminal law. What emerges is a chilling portrait of a legal system that increasingly criminalizes pregnancy outcomes, motherhood, and queer identity itself. Guest: A wrongful convictions litigator and former federal prosecutor, Valena Beety is the McKinney Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law and a co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project. Her coursebook The Wrongful Convictions Reader is used in classrooms nationwide to teach about wrongful convictions. Host: Dr. Christina Gessler is an academic writing coach and editor. She uses her Ph.D. in history to explore which stories we tell, and what happens to those we never tell. She is the creator, producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Reproductive Justice Stitching Freedom You're Doing It Wrong Witchcraft: A History In 13 Trials The Turnaway Study The Coroner's Silence Ghost in the Criminal Justice Machine Secrets of the Killing State Carceral Apartheid Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! Please join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 300+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/academic-life

A woman miscarries and is charged with murder. A new mother tests positive for a drug her hospital administers and loses custody of her newborn. Four women are convicted of horrific crimes against children they never touched, based on junk science and homophobia and spend nearly twenty years in prison before being exonerated. A queer teenager takes a photo of a child's diaper rash at work and is sentenced to 126 years. These cases are not aberrations. They are symptoms of a system that punishes women and queer people not for what they have done, but for who they are. In the United States, nearly three-quarters of all wrongly convicted women were convicted of crimes that never occurred at all. Valena Beety, co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project and award-winning legal scholar cited by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reveals how ordinary tragedies—a child's sudden death, a husband who dies in his sleep—are transformed by prosecutors into murders that never happened. These “no crime” convictions disproportionately target women and queer people, whose identities are recast as evidence of guilt through bias, junk science, and entrenched stereotypes. Drawing on devastating real-life cases, Professor Beety exposes how prosecutorial overreach, flawed forensic science, and cultural panic converge—and how fetal personhood laws, the fall of Roe v. Wade, and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation have dramatically expanded the reach of criminal law. What emerges is a chilling portrait of a legal system that increasingly criminalizes pregnancy outcomes, motherhood, and queer identity itself. Guest: A wrongful convictions litigator and former federal prosecutor, Valena Beety is the McKinney Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law and a co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project. Her coursebook The Wrongful Convictions Reader is used in classrooms nationwide to teach about wrongful convictions. Host: Dr. Christina Gessler is an academic writing coach and editor. She uses her Ph.D. in history to explore which stories we tell, and what happens to those we never tell. She is the creator, producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Reproductive Justice Stitching Freedom You're Doing It Wrong Witchcraft: A History In 13 Trials The Turnaway Study The Coroner's Silence Ghost in the Criminal Justice Machine Secrets of the Killing State Carceral Apartheid Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! Please join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 300+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/lgbtq-studies

A woman miscarries and is charged with murder. A new mother tests positive for a drug her hospital administers and loses custody of her newborn. Four women are convicted of horrific crimes against children they never touched, based on junk science and homophobia and spend nearly twenty years in prison before being exonerated. A queer teenager takes a photo of a child's diaper rash at work and is sentenced to 126 years. These cases are not aberrations. They are symptoms of a system that punishes women and queer people not for what they have done, but for who they are. In the United States, nearly three-quarters of all wrongly convicted women were convicted of crimes that never occurred at all. Valena Beety, co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project and award-winning legal scholar cited by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reveals how ordinary tragedies—a child's sudden death, a husband who dies in his sleep—are transformed by prosecutors into murders that never happened. These “no crime” convictions disproportionately target women and queer people, whose identities are recast as evidence of guilt through bias, junk science, and entrenched stereotypes. Drawing on devastating real-life cases, Professor Beety exposes how prosecutorial overreach, flawed forensic science, and cultural panic converge—and how fetal personhood laws, the fall of Roe v. Wade, and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation have dramatically expanded the reach of criminal law. What emerges is a chilling portrait of a legal system that increasingly criminalizes pregnancy outcomes, motherhood, and queer identity itself. Guest: A wrongful convictions litigator and former federal prosecutor, Valena Beety is the McKinney Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law and a co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project. Her coursebook The Wrongful Convictions Reader is used in classrooms nationwide to teach about wrongful convictions. Host: Dr. Christina Gessler is an academic writing coach and editor. She uses her Ph.D. in history to explore which stories we tell, and what happens to those we never tell. She is the creator, producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Reproductive Justice Stitching Freedom You're Doing It Wrong Witchcraft: A History In 13 Trials The Turnaway Study The Coroner's Silence Ghost in the Criminal Justice Machine Secrets of the Killing State Carceral Apartheid Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! Please join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 300+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

ESPECIAL DEL DÍA DEL PADRE

Join host Patrick Kelly as he sits down with industry legend Mayda Sotomayor-Kirk at the Seal Suite headquarters in Vero Beach. Discover Mayda's incredible immigrant story, her rise as a female leader in a male-dominated produce industry, and her pivotal role in shaping the global citrus market including the South African citrus program. This episode reminds us all why storytelling, resilience, and passion fuel the heart of fresh produce.

We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a 9-0 judicial-estoppel case that lets us ask where the doctrine even came from (Tennessee, 1857, apparently), and Abouammo v. United States, the venue case about a former Twitter employee who fabricated a document while the FBI sat downstairs. The venue talk wanders, happily, into the Yellowstone "zone of death," a C.J. Box thriller, Jim Comey's second career as a novelist, and an extended appraisal of watch brands. Highlights[00:00:53] - Podcast update, SCOTUSblog partnership, and listener reviews[00:01:49] - Justice Thomas's "foot fault" joke[00:03:48] - Sam Bray citation discussion (Aldridge v. Regions Bank)[00:05:02] - Justice Alito retirement speculation and clerk rumors[00:17:23] - Vacation schedule and the upcoming opinion gap[00:21:03] - June 11 merits decisions overview[00:23:17] - Landor and the still-outstanding big case of the term[00:27:49] - Justice Sotomayor's statement respecting denial of cert on ineffective assistance[00:29:53] - Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: bankruptcy and judicial estoppel[00:36:10] - The Fifth Circuit's rule on inadvertence and mistake[00:38:47] - Justice Jackson's majority opinion[00:40:29] - Justice Thomas's concurrence and the history of judicial estoppel[00:48:42] - Justice Sotomayor's concurrence and totality-of-the-circumstances approach[00:52:11] - Abouammo v. United States: Article III venue and criminal prosecution location[00:55:09] - Yellowstone's "zone of death" and vicinage problems[00:59:21] - The fake invoice, FBI investigation, and venue dispute[01:06:33] - Venue, personal jurisdiction, and extraterritorial conduct[01:10:22] - Statutory venue rules and unresolved constitutional questions[01:12:30] - Reprosecution after a venue reversal and double jeopardy

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News 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

The Mexico City duo performs songs from their latest album, WABI SABI.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

In this episode of Let's Get Civical, Lizzie and Arden don't let technical trouble get in the way of discussing the infamous court case where Sonia Sotomayor saved baseball: Silverman v. MLB Player Relations Committee! Join them as they discuss the reason baseball players decided to strike, how it impacted the 1994 season, and why Sotomayor was the reason it got back on track! Follow us on socials: Let's Get Civical  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/letsgetcivical/Lizzie Stewart Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/lizzie_the_rock_stewart/Arden Walentowski Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ardenjulianna/Love the show? Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify!

En este episodio de Hombre de Barro, conversamos con Álvaro Sotomayor, quien comparte una historia marcada por la superación, la familia y la resiliencia.A través de esta conversación, Álvaro nos cuenta cómo enfrentó la separación de sus padres y el proceso de crecer junto a su madre y sus hermanos, aprendiendo desde muy joven el valor del esfuerzo, la unidad y la perseverancia en medio de las dificultades.Un episodio honesto e inspirador que nos recuerda cómo las pruebas de la vida también pueden formar carácter, propósito y fortaleza interior. ✨Acompáñanos en esta historia de lucha, crecimiento y esperanza.#HombreDeBarro r#HistoriasDeVida #Superación #Podcast

What if the most powerful immigration story you heard this week came from a picture book?Jacqueline Alcantara is a first-generation American and award-winning illustrator who has lived the experiences she draws. She's the author of Tíos and Primos — a children's book pulled from her own childhood of crossing language barriers to connect with family in Honduras — and the illustrator behind Just Shine, the #1 New York Times bestselling picture book written by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor about her mother's journey from Puerto Rico to the Bronx. Two books. Two immigrant stories. One illustrator who knows exactly what it feels like to stand in a room full of family and not quite have the words.Jackie joins host Lauren Clarke to talk about what picture books can do that policy debates simply can't. Plus, EIG partner Rob Taylor shares the latest news, including an update on the USCIS memo quietly reframing adjustment of status as discretionary — and what that means if you're currently in the green card process. Resource Links:http://jacquelinealcantara.com/tios-and-primos

All @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2kJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kfFOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nzTODAY's MEMBERS-ONLY SHOW: “SPLC Was PAYING the KKK — DOJ Drops Bombshell Indictment”YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/Xzya7MLiwdULocals: XXXThe Supreme Court just handed down DC v. R.W., reversing a DC Court of Appeals ruling that said a police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop a driver who was slowly backing out of a parking lot at 2 AM — after two of his companions bolted on foot when a cop arrived. The Court ruled 7-2 that the officer's "totality of the circumstances" analysis was textbook Fourth Amendment law.The decision is straightforward, well-reasoned, and consistent with decades of precedent. What's not straightforward is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's solo dissent — a performance so disconnected from the legal mainstream that even Justice Sotomayor refused to join it. Jackson accused her colleagues of "wordsmithing" the lower court, and argued that two people fleeing a parked car at 2 AM raise no suspicion whatsoever.I'll break down exactly what the Court held, why it's correct, and why Jackson's dissent reads like just another petulant diatribe. This is SCOTUS doing its job well — and one justice doing hers poorly.Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down!Episode #1299.

  OA1262 - How are a car accident in California, a tax fraud case in Nevada, and two bus accidents in New York and Pennsylvania all connected to the Dobbs abortion case? Find out on this week's accidental too-deep dive into state sovereignty. Jenessa read a bunch of extra cases just to be thorough, and accidentally uncovered Kavanaugh planting the seeds that would grow into the “egregiously wrong” “rule” for ignoring stare decisis. But also mostly we'll talk about the weird world of state sovereignty, Clarence Thomas being obnoxious and ahistorical while accusing everyone else of being ahistorical, and Sotomayor getting some peace for a change to write a pleasant little 9-0 decision about some non-partisan procedural legal nerdery that benefits injured plaintiffs. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019) Listen to oral arguments on Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1299; Timestamp for Kavanaugh dropping the “egregiously wrong” bomb: 50:47 Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), Kavanaugh concurrence Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 607 U.S. ___ (2026) The “major questions doctrine” Kavanaugh inception timeline: U.S. Telecom Association v. F.C.C., 855 F.3d 381, 422-423 (D.C. Cir 2017), Kavanaugh dissent Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520, 32529 (proposed Jul. 8, 2019) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60). West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) Additional sources: Episodes 1229 & 1230 for an in-depth explanation of immunities, including state and federal sovereign immunity: “The complicated web of immunities that makes accountability so difficult” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) U.S. Const. amend. XI Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

David Kerin is a former collegiate coach, USA Track and Field national team administrator, and performance consultant. David brings a refreshingly unconventional lens to some of the sport's most persistent challenges. His articles on '2D, 2.5, 3D Coaching' and 'Fixing the Right Problem' and most recently, developing a provisional patent for an innovative movement analysis system shows that he has never stopped asking the questions others overlook. Topics0:00 – Introduction — David's background as a collegiate coach, USA Track & Field national team development administrator, and current consultant working across multiple sports5:10 – Why Biomechanics? — What drew David deeper into the science of movement, why track and field's objectivity makes it the perfect laboratory, and the mentors who helped shape his thinking8:00 – Fixing the Right Problem — Why the flaw you see is never the root cause, and how to work backward through a performance sequence to find the real breakdown point13:00 – The High Jump Curve Problem — Why athletes drift instead of committing to the curve, the "lean is a byproduct" principle, and how poor curve mechanics have quietly reshaped the event17:00 – 2D Thinking vs. 3D Reality — Why coaches and scientists analyzing three-dimensional movement through a two-dimensional lens creates critical blind spots, and David's concept of "2.5D" as a practical stepping stone22:00 – The Third Dimension in Sprinting — Why foot orientation and lateral placement are being overlooked in sprint analysis, even at the elite level26:10 – US Athlete Development — The structural tensions in NCAA track and field, the cost of prioritizing recruitment over development, and how USA Track & Field's Talent Protection Program tried to bridge the post-collegiate gap38:25 – Whole, Part, and When to Intervene — When to isolate components vs. train the whole event, why stabilization matters more than early adaptation, and the danger of over-coaching innate movement patterns47:00 – Start Point Geometry in High Jump — The counterintuitive truth about why a tighter start point along the bar axis makes curve mechanics worse, not better51:27 – Dick Fosbury and a 50-Year Stagnation — Why Fosbury's 1968 technique still benchmarks elite collegiate high jumping today, and why high jumpers sustain career-ending injuries at a far greater rate than pole vaulters57:00 – Body Type, Force, and Career Longevity — What Jonathan Edwards, Mutaz Barshim, and Sotomayor reveal about the relationship between mass, force application, and how long a body can sustain elite performance1:03:12 – How to Reach David — David's open-source approach to mentorship and how coaches and athletes can get in touchContact David: dkerin@kerinperformanceinsights.comSupport the show

Mary and Andrew recognize it's been a doozy of a week. Starting with the continued fallout from the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision, they focus on how much the 6-3 ruling has opened the floodgates for other states like Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida and Texas to pursue similar redistricting efforts. The Justices even allowed Alabama to move forward with re-drawing their congressional maps, despite prior determinations of intentional racial discrimination in the state. Mary and Andrew juxtapose this new landscape with last week's redistricting decision in Virginia, as Democrats submit an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on that ruling. In addition, a Fulton County decision came in allowing the Justice Department to hold onto the 2020 ballots seized in the FBI's January raid. Plus, the co-hosts unpack the latest from Trump's retribution efforts as James Comey's criminal trial date is set. But in an uplifting end to a rough week, the pair highlight Senator Mark Kelly's argument before the DC Circuit in his case against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his participation in a video reminding military members of their duty not to obey unlawful orders. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the Just Security piece on Senator Mark Kelly's case: Lessons from the Pentagon's Empty Case Against Mark Kelly    Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Para el tercer episodio de la nueva temporada, El Sonido: Cancioneros viajó a la Ciudad de México para encontrarse con el dúo Sotomayor luego del lanzamiento de WABI SABI, su primer álbum en seis años. Después de un período en el que Paulina desarrolló su proyecto Pahua y Raúl exploró nuevas direcciones con Tonga Conga, el dúo regresa con un disco que cierra un ciclo abierto tras la pandemia y celebra diez años de trayectoria. En este episodio, Sotomayor abre su cancionero para compartir las canciones que marcaron su identidad sonora: desde el legado electrónico de Nortec Collective, hasta la revolución caribeña de Bomba Estéreo, y los ecos del house global de los noventa con Deep Dish y Everything But the Girl. El recorrido también nos lleva a una raíz más profunda con Aurita Castillo y su clásico “Chambacú”, expandiendo la idea de un sonido latinoamericano diverso, donde el Caribe y el Pacífico conviven. WABI SABI, compuesto en México y grabado en Puerto Rico junto a Eduardo Cabra, propone un viaje sonoro: un disco que comienza en México y termina en el Caribe. Puedes ver el video podcast en el canal de YouTube KEXP Podcasts, con subtítulos en inglés y español. Cancionero curado por Sotomayor: “Polaris” – Nortec Collective· “Pure Love” – Bomba Estéreo· “The Future of the Future” – Deep Dish & Everything But the Girl· “Chambacú” – Aurita Castillo y su conjunto· “La Peli” – Sotomayor Créditos: Host & Producer: Albina CabreraEditorial Editing: Dusty HenryAudio Mastering: Jackson LongVideographer: Omar Fernando Rios AlanizOriginal Podcast Music: Roberto Carlos Lange (Helado Negro) Support El Sonido: kexp.org/el-sonido In this episode, Sotomayor opens their cancionero to share the songs that shaped their sonic identity—from the electronic legacy of Nortec Collective, to the Caribbean-driven sound of Bomba Estéreo, and the global house echoes of the ’90s through Deep Dish and Everything But the Girl. The journey also reaches deeper roots with Aurita Castillo and her classic “Chambacú,” expanding the idea of a diverse Latin American sound shaped by both the Caribbean and the Pacific. WABI SABI, composed in Mexico and recorded in Puerto Rico alongside Eduardo Cabra, unfolds as a sonic journey, one that begins in Mexico and ends in the Caribbean. You can watch the full video podcast on the KEXP Podcasts YouTube channel, with subtitles available in English and Spanish. “Polaris” – Nortec Collective“Pure Love” – Bomba Estéreo“The Future of the Future” – Deep Dish & Everything But the Girl“Chambacú” – Aurita Castillo y su conjunto“La Peli” – Sotomayor Host & Producer: Albina CabreraEditorial Editing: Dusty HenryAudio Mastering: Jackson LongVideographer: Omar Fernando Rios AlanizOriginal Podcast Music: Roberto Carlos Lange (Helado Negro) Photo Credit: Feli Gutierres Support El Sonido: kexp.org/el-sonidoSupport the show: http://kexp.org/elsonidoSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Full show: https://kNOwBETTERHIPHOP.com Artists Played: Devin Morrison, conshus, The Commission Beer Chamber, AMiAM, SoyIsReal, Sotomayor, YoSoyMatt, The You In I, Little Barrie, Cain Culto, Xiuhtezcatl, Snow Tha Product, Ali Shaheed Muhammad, Loren Oden, Adrian Younge, Jazz Is Dead, Amos, TektheINTERN, Rubox, Mic Handz, Mic Geronimo, Tom Misch, Dysfunkshunal Familee, Grae Wulf, Napoleon Da Legend, Jazzy Soto, GAGLE, District Five, Saul Williams, ESHBEATS, The Stunt Man, OutKast, GOODie MOb, IMAKEMADBEATS

A deep dive into the latest Supreme Court news, a couple of unusual shadow docket rulings, and a cross-ideological merits decision that raises classic questions about federal power, preemption, and how much weight lower courts should give to context.We open with reporting on leaked internal Supreme Court memoranda related to the 2016 stay of the Clean Power Plan, including what the documents may reveal, why the leak itself is so unusual, and whether timing and incomplete records change the story. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor's public apology after comments about Justice Kavanaugh, and what that moment says about judicial professionalism and public exchange.From there, we turn to some shadow docket happenings: a one-line summary reversal in a Texas redistricting case and a Fourth Amendment summary reversal out of the D.C. courts. Finally, we move to the merits docket and consider Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (24-924), a case involving federal contractor preemption and a terrorist attack in Afghanistan, where the Court narrows a (possibly infamous) Scalia opinion.Key Topics[00:05:32] - NYT leak of Supreme Court memoranda on the Clean Power Plan stay[00:10:13] - Whether document leaks are better than source-based leaks[00:21:30] - Justice Sotomayor's remarks about Justice Kavanaugh and her apology[00:27:27] - Summary reversal in Abbott v. LULAC and Texas redistricting[00:35:18] - D.C. Fourth Amendment summary reversal and reasonable suspicion[00:47:04] - Hensley v. Fluor Corp.: military contractor liability and preemption[00:52:48] - Little v. Barreme, general law, and the limits of contractor immunity

Sarah Isgur and David French push back against the New York Times ⁠reporting⁠ on the birth of the shadow docket, discuss Justice Sotomayor's apology after criticizing him in personal terms during a speech at the University of Kansas School of Law, and interview  Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt about ⁠McGirt v. Oklahoma⁠. The Agenda:–The birth of the shadow docket–Who leaked Dobbs?–Justice Sotomayor apologizes to Justice Kavanaugh–Justice Kagan's screaming tantrum–Justice Thomas's talk on the Declaration of Independence–We are the McGirt podcast Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Melissa, Kate, and Leah break down an absolute boatload of beefs: Trump vs. Pope Leo, Sonia Sotomayor vs. Coach Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas vs. progressives, and Ketanji Brown Jackson vs. the shadow docket, before covering some of the week's other legal news, including the Harvard Crimson's reporting on conservative judges' ideological litmus tests for clerkships. Then, they break down the Court's opinion in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, before previewing some upcoming oral arguments at One First Street, including the “crimmigration” case, Blanche v. Lau.Favorite things: Leah: RFK Jr. and the raccoon penis; Her talk with Steve Vladeck in DC on her upcoming paper, The Passive Vices, on Monday, April 20 at 12:45pm - RSVP here. Melissa: Lady Tremaine, Rachel Hochhauser; Lily Allen's West End Girl tour; Rumours, Fleetwood Mac  Kate: What I Want, MUNA; Playground, Richard Powers; Labor Dept. Investigates Texts Among Secretary's Family and Staff, Rebecca Davis O'Brien (NYT)  Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026! 6/20/26 – New York City Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPreorder 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

For the second week in a row, the 3WHH gang (minus one) were on the road, this time recording live in the corner of a hotel lobby before the annual meeting of the Philadelphia Society. The sound quality of this episode is . . . authentic. Yes, I'll go with that. John Yoo couldn't make the meeting, so we have a special guest, our old pal Glenn Ellmers. With John absent, we get our freak on about the Clean Air Act . . . actually we didn't do that. We did worse: We get down in the weeds of metaphysics, radical historicism, the theological-political problem (especially in the context of this week's feud between the President and the Pope), dishing on Laura Field's terrible book Furious Minds, contrasting Justice Sotomayor's jurisprudence of "feels" versus Justice Thomas's jurisprudence of principle—the principle of the Declaration of Independence. And finally, we take up the perennial question, what's the matter with kids today. And as such the exit music this week is "Kids," from moe:Kids will try to run you overKids will try to bring you downKids will never say they're sorryKids back then are older now

Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit claremontinstitute.substack.comIn this installment of our Trump v. Slaughter mini-series, Spencer and Ryan get to the heart of the Trump Administration's theory of executive power, and how it's derived from history and case law. Then they address the various counterarguments and lines of questioning from Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, respectively. Each of the Court's three liberals reveals a different aspect of the Progressive judicial philosophy, and illuminates by contrast what the Trump Administration is trying to do. Next week: the other side gets its turn in the hot seat!

Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French revisit Stephen Colbert's favorite case, take a look at a rare biting word about Justice Brett Kavanaugh from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and dive into a circuit court extravaganza. –Sarah is on a book tour! –Sotomayor vs. Kavanaugh–Citizens United is not controversial–Is there a judicial pipeline?–The seals are ugly–Circuit Court Extravaganza: Bathtub gin, pronouns, and sparkling sports gambling Show Notes:–The case establishing corporate personhood–Home distilling ban struck down after 158 years–Seals of the Circuit Courts (and then some!)–Short Circuit's newsletter this week Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says he sensed President Donald Trump's disappointment with European allies who were not helping at the start of the war with Iran, but he insists they are stepping up now, especially to safeguard the Strait of Hormuz, which is still effectively closed by Iran as they claim Israeli violations of the current ceasefire. General Rutte also says, 'Let me be clear: This alliance is not whistling past the graveyard as you would say in the United States'; U.S. House Democrats try to pass a War Powers Resolution to stop President Trump from waging war on Iran with Congressional authorization, but a Republican presiding over the brief House session does not recognize them to make the motion; IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva says the Iran war will mean the IMF will downgrade its forecast for the world economy; First Lady Melania Trump criticizes what she calls “lies linking me to the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein”, the late convicted sex offender; Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is asked by a University of Alabama Law School student about bridging political divides with other justices; Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) takes part in Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference in New York City; NASA expresses confidence in the Artemis II moon mission capsule heat shield that will allow the crew of four to land back safely on Earth Friday night. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices