Podcast appearances and mentions of Sonia Sotomayor

President Trump has scored another YUGE WIN with SCOTUS, once again over the cascading tears of a 19-page Justice Sonya “wise Latina” Sotomayor dissent, which was joined b y the usual cabal of Justice Elena “never married, never kids” Kagan and Justice Kentaji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson. In this case SCOTUS removal of this injunction will allow Trump to move forward with firing nearly 1,400 employees of the Department of Education, the weapon of ideological brainwashing and indoctrination that the Progressive Fascists have been wielding over America's school children for decades. In contrast to Sotomayor's overwrought reason-free 19-page dissent drowning in estrogenic hysteria, the six justices majority felt the legal rationale for their decision to once again overturn yet another anti-democratic injunction ordered by an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, federal district trial court judge was so obvious that it required neither explanation nor signature. Indeed, the majority delivered this additional win for the Article II Executive Branch President in a SINGLE SENTENCE knock-out blow to the Progressive Fascist regime desperate to maintain its ideological control over America's next generation.The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

This Day in Legal History: “A Friend of the Constitution”On July 15, 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall took the unusual step of anonymously defending one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in American history—McCulloch v. Maryland. Writing under the pseudonym A Friend of the Constitution, Marshall authored a series of essays published in the Philadelphia Union and the Alexandria Gazette, responding to public criticism of the Court's expansive interpretation of federal power. The decision, issued earlier that year, had upheld Congress's authority to establish a national bank and struck down Maryland's attempt to tax it, solidifying the doctrine of federal supremacy.Marshall's public defense was significant because it revealed the political sensitivity of the ruling and the extent to which the legitimacy of the Court's reasoning was contested. The McCulloch opinion laid out the principle of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, asserting that the federal government could take actions not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they furthered constitutionally enumerated powers. The decision also famously stated, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” rejecting state efforts to control or burden federal institutions.Critics, particularly from states' rights factions, argued the decision centralized too much power in the federal government and eroded state sovereignty. Marshall's essays, though unsigned, were unmistakably in his judicial voice and aimed to calm anxieties about federal overreach by appealing to reason, constitutional structure, and the logic of a functioning union. His public engagement reflected an early awareness of the need to build public confidence in the judiciary's authority.This episode was rare in that a sitting Chief Justice chose to participate in public constitutional debate beyond the bench. It also underscored the foundational role McCulloch would come to play in defining the American system of federalism. The decision has remained a touchstone in constitutional law for over two centuries, cited in debates over congressional authority ranging from the New Deal to the Affordable Care Act.Marshall's intervention on July 15, 1819, was both defensive and visionary—a recognition that legal rulings do not exist in a vacuum and often require articulation beyond the courtroom to be enduring.The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the Department of Education. In a brief unsigned order, the Court lifted a lower court's injunction that had temporarily reinstated about 1,400 laid-off employees and blocked the transfer of key department functions to other agencies. The decision marks a major victory for President Trump, who has pushed to return educational control to states and fulfill a campaign promise to minimize federal involvement in schools.Three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning that the ruling effectively grants the president power to dismantle congressional mandates by eliminating staff necessary to carry them out. The Biden-appointed district judge who had issued the initial injunction found the layoffs would likely paralyze the department. Critics of the plan, including 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts, and unions, argue that the move could delay federal aid, weaken civil rights enforcement, and harm disadvantaged students.Trump has stated that vital services like Pell grants and special education funding will continue, though responsibilities would shift to agencies such as the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the Court's decision, calling it a win for students and families. The legal battle continues in lower courts, but the Supreme Court's decision enables Trump to move forward with an aggressive downsizing strategy that would cut the department's staff by half compared to its size at the start of his presidency.US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to gut Education Department | ReutersGermany's Federal Constitutional Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by two Yemeni nationals seeking to hold the German government accountable for U.S. drone strikes conducted from Ramstein Air Base. The plaintiffs, whose relatives were killed in a 2012 strike, argued that Germany shared responsibility because Ramstein served as a key communications hub for U.S. drone operations. They claimed that Germany failed its duty to protect life by allowing the base to be used in actions that allegedly violated international law.The court ruled that while Germany has a general obligation to protect human rights, especially regarding foreign policy, this duty was not activated in the case. The judges found no clear evidence that the U.S. was applying unlawful criteria in distinguishing between legitimate military targets and civilians in Yemen. They also concluded that the German government had acted within its discretion by relying on the U.S. interpretation of international law.The decision reaffirmed Berlin's broad latitude in conducting foreign and security policy, including alliance cooperation. Germany's foreign and defense ministries welcomed the ruling, stating it validated their legal position. The plaintiffs criticized the outcome as setting a dangerous precedent by shielding states that facilitate U.S. drone operations from accountability when civilians are harmed. The case reignited debate over Germany's role in supporting U.S. military actions from its territory.Germany's top court dismisses complaint against US drone missions | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit temporarily blocked the Trump administration's attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Afghans living in the United States. The court issued an administrative stay through July 21 in response to a request from the advocacy group CASA, which is challenging the Department of Homeland Security's April decision to revoke TPS for Afghans and Cameroonians. CASA argues the move was arbitrary, discriminatory, and would cause irreparable harm to those affected.TPS allows individuals from countries facing conflict or disaster to stay and work legally in the U.S. for renewable periods, typically between six and eighteen months. The lawsuit is part of broader resistance to Trump's long-standing efforts to roll back TPS protections, many of which were halted by courts during his first term. Afghan advocates say ending TPS now would put lives at risk, particularly among those who supported U.S. operations in Afghanistan and women facing repression under the Taliban.The court's stay is not a final ruling but gives time for the legal challenge to proceed. The administration has until July 17 to respond. AfghanEvac, a coalition of veterans and resettlement advocates, supports the legal fight and urges the administration to restore TPS protections. Over 70,000 Afghans were admitted to the U.S. under temporary parole following the 2021 Taliban takeover, many of whom could be deported without continued legal status.US appeals court temporarily upholds protected status for Afghans | ReutersCongress has finally corrected the costly mistake it made with Section 174, restoring immediate expensing for research and development. But I don't view this as a victory—it's a reset. For three years, businesses operating at the forefront of innovation were forced to amortize R&D costs, a move that was not only economically damaging but entirely unnecessary. While lawmakers delayed fixing their own error, peer nations like China and Singapore advanced forward-looking tax regimes that actively incentivize both research and commercialization.Restoring immediate expensing brings us back to where we were before 2017, but stability in the tax code shouldn't be treated as a favor to innovators—it should be the baseline. R&D thrives on long timelines and clear signals, not temporary fixes and partisan reversals. If Congress wants to take innovation seriously, it needs to treat R&D expensing like core infrastructure and embed automatic responsiveness into the tax code. For example, if GDP growth stalls or domestic R&D spending drops below a certain threshold, the deduction should automatically increase—just as China did with 120% expensing for integrated circuits and industrial machinery.Beyond that, we need to rethink what we're rewarding. Under current rules, companies receive tax breaks for spending on research whether or not those ideas ever generate revenue, jobs, or real-world application. I'm not arguing against basic research, but I believe we should offer enhanced incentives for firms that meet defined commercialization benchmarks—like securing patents, licensing products, or manufacturing IP domestically.Repealing amortization was the right move, but the three-year delay already did serious harm to sectors both parties claim to support. Immediate expensing should now be seen as the floor—not the ceiling—of effective R&D policy. We can't afford to let innovation incentives swing with the political winds. That's why I believe Congress should require full economic scoring from the Joint Committee on Taxation or CBO before any future attempt to undo R&D expensing. You can't bind future lawmakers—but you can make them confront the cost of setting another fire.Fixing the R&D Tax Code Blunder Isn't a Victory, It's a Reset 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 Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with mass firings at the U.S. Department of Education, a decision that legal experts say could expand presidential power and undermine Congress' authority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, calling the move a blow to civil rights, student loans and special education enforcement. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has cleared the Trump administration to proceed with layoffs of nearly 1,400 Education Department employees, a decision delivered via the court's shadow docket and without written explanation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented sharply, accusing the court of enabling lawlessness. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Texas death-row inmate have standing to sue the state over its refusal to grant access to DNA testing under a law that allows such testing only when the person can demonstrate that exculpatory results would have prevented their conviction?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim challenging Texas's postconviction DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion of the Court.Prisoners convicted in state court have a liberty interest in demonstrating their innocence with new evidence under state law. When states create postconviction procedures, they can create rights to other procedures essential to realizing those rights. Under Skinner v Switzer, a prisoner may bring a § 1983 due process claim alleging that a state's DNA testing statute unconstitutionally prevents him from obtaining testing, even though he cannot directly challenge state court denials of his testing motions. To bring such a suit, the prisoner must demonstrate judicial standing to sue.The standing analysis follows Reed v Goertz, which requires three elements. First, Gutierrez adequately alleged an injury: the prosecutor's denial of access to DNA evidence. Second, prosecutor Saenz caused this injury by refusing to release evidence in his custody for testing. Third, if a federal court declares Texas's procedures unconstitutional, that judgment would eliminate Saenz's justification for denying testing, thereby removing the barrier between Gutierrez and the evidence. The declaratory judgment would change the parties' legal status and redress Gutierrez's injury by eliminating the allegedly unlawful basis for the denial.The Fifth Circuit erred in two fundamental ways. First, it improperly focused on the limited declaratory judgment the District Court ultimately issued rather than on Gutierrez's broader complaint. Gutierrez's complaint challenged not just Article 64's limitation to actual innocence claims, but multiple barriers the statute creates—including its virtually insurmountable standard for parties to crimes, its refusal to consider new evidence, and its prohibition on testing solely to challenge death eligibility. Standing depends on the allegations in the complaint, not on the particular relief a district court later grants.Second, the Fifth Circuit wrongly transformed the redressability inquiry into speculation about whether the prosecutor would ultimately provide the evidence. Under Reed, a declaratory judgment need only eliminate the prosecutor's reliance on the challenged provision as a justification for denying testing. The Court rejected the notion that redressability requires certainty about the ultimate outcome. That a prosecutor might find other reasons to deny testing—just as the prosecutor in Reed had multiple grounds for denial—does not defeat standing to challenge specific reasons as unconstitutional. Courts regularly allow plaintiffs to challenge improper legal grounds for discretionary decisions even when the decision-maker might reach the same result for different reasons.

Shannon Bream breaks down the Supreme Court's recent 8-1 ruling affirming presidential authority to cut federal jobs, highlighting Justice Sotomayor's rare split with Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. She explains the procedural nature of the decision, emphasizing how federal judges often delay Trump-era policies through legal wrangling—frustrating conservatives. Bream also tackles the growing public outrage over the withheld Epstein list, revealing bipartisan efforts to demand transparency amid distrust in the DOJ's handling. She notes concerns about protecting reputations but underscores the frustration from conservatives who expected full accountability. Finally, Shannon expresses empathy for Texas flood victims, acknowledging the immense community grief and the push for stronger safety measures. The segment sets the stage for ongoing legal and political battles, spotlighting issues important to right-leaning audiences.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect former employees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an employer's alleged act of discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.Title 1 of the A-D-A makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a “qualified individual” based on disability regarding compensation and other employment matters. The statute defines a “qualified individual” as someone who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” The present-tense verbs—“holds,” “desires,” and “can perform”—signal that the law protects individuals able to perform a job they currently hold or seek when discrimination occurs, not retirees who neither hold nor desire employment. The statute's definition of “reasonable accommodation,” which includes job restructuring and modifying facilities for employees, reinforces this interpretation by referencing accommodations that make sense only for current employees or job applicants, not retirees.The A-D-A's structure further supports this reading through its examples of discrimination in Section 12112(b), such as “qualification standards” and “employment tests,” which clearly aim to protect job holders and seekers rather than retirees. Additionally, comparing Title 1 with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reveals that while Title VII protects “employees” without temporal qualification, the A-D-A's use of “qualified individual” linked to present-tense verbs indicates protection for current job holders or seekers only. The Court's precedent in Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corporation anticipated that someone may fall outside the A-D-A's protections if she can no longer perform the job.Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressing concern about litigants changing their arguments after the Court grants certiorari.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that Title 1's prohibition on disability discrimination should not cease when an employee retires.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor in parts, arguing that the majority misreads Title 1 by viewing it through “the distorted lens of pure textualism,” incorrectly using the qualified individual definition as a temporal limit it was never designed to be, and thereby rendering meaningless the A-D-A's protections for disabled workers' retirement benefits just when those protections matter most.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” a new poll shows that a majority of Americans don't believe the government's explanation of Jeffrey Epstein's death. Even the Trump administration is now trying to cover it up, and Americans aren't buying it. Then, one of Joe Biden's doctors from his time as president has pleaded the Fifth in a congressional hearing when asked if he knew about Biden's mental decline. Next, the Supreme Court justices are infighting after Justice Sonia Sotomayor was left confused by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. Finally, former staff members for New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are not the most moral of individuals.   Today's Guests: Sara is joined by Jason Buttrill, head writer and chief researcher for Glenn Beck, and Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson.   Today's Sponsors:   Birch Gold: Just text my name, SARA, to the number 989898, and Birch Gold will send you a FREE info kit on gold.   CraftCo. Flying Ace Spirits: Buy online at http://www.flyingacespirits.com and use code BLAZE for free shipping. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're breaking down the latest Epstein client list rumors—and why Pam Bondi is suddenly in the hot seat. Meanwhile, Elon Musk drops Steve Bannon's name into the scandal, raising major questions about who's really in those files.Then:*Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson votes NO on workforce cuts—and Sotomayor roasts her on the record*Greta Thunberg heads back to Gaza for another round of performative activism*James Comey is under investigation!*Kash Patel weighs in on the deep state chaosPlus: Trump shuts down amnesty rumors and CNN finally admits Americans want deportationsSUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Most of us are too busy to get all our fruits and veggies every day. Field of Greens makes it simple. Use code CHICKS at https://FOGChicks.com to save 20% on your first order plus free shipping.Support American filmmakers and American values by joining the Angel Studios Guild at https://Angel.com/chicksDonate $20 to support women's success and receive the book, A Woman's Guide, Seven Rules for Success in Business and Life, from Concerned Women for America. Visit https://ConcernedWomen.org/Chicks

On today's explosive episode of Wake Up America, Austin Petersen dives deep into the Epstein cover-up backlash and how it's now hitting Trump's own inner circle. After years of fueling the populist right with conspiracy theories — from birtherism to deep state coups — the Trump movement is suddenly telling its followers to “trust the DOJ” when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. But MAGA influencers like Laura Loomer and Alex Jones aren't buying it. Is this the final straw for conspiracy culture? Or just the beginning of the Conspiracy Boomerang?

Hour 2 Audio from WGIG-AM and FM in Brunswick, GA

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Mike Lindell's sparklemagic lawyers find out that sometimes ChatGPT ends with Rule 11. Then we visit Elon Musk and Sam Altman for a lesson in civil procedure. After that Andrew and Liz explain how Trump can't actually un-ban TikTok via presidential edict and break down the latest Supreme Court efforts to burn down the judiciary. Plus for subscribers, Nate Silver — who only gambles for fun, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise! — is right about the Republicans' trillion dollar tax heist???   Links:   Coomer v. Lindell [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63296393/coomer-v-lindell/   Musk v. Altman [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/   D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security [Trial Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/   Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. [SCOTUS Docket] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a1153.html   EO 14166 (TikTok ban) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/application-of-protecting-americans-from-foreign-adversary-controlled-applications-act-to-tiktok/   FOIA production re TikTok https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25989866-25-3980-nd-cal-response-07032025/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles because invalidating the regulations would likely redress their monetary injuries from decreased fuel sales. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The California regulations force automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles, thereby reducing demand for gasoline and other liquid fuels. Article III standing requires showing injury in fact, causation, and redressability—meaning the plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm caused by the defendant that judicial relief would likely fix. When government regulation of one business predictably causes downstream economic injuries to linked businesses, commonsense economic principles support finding that invalidating the regulation would likely redress those injuries by removing the regulatory impediment to the injured party's sales.Record evidence confirms that invalidating the regulations would likely redress the fuel producers' injuries, including: California's own estimates showing the regulations would cause substantial reductions in gasoline demand exceeding $10 billion by 2030; California's statements that the regulations are “critical” for emissions reductions and that without them fewer electric vehicles would be sold; EPA's affirmation that California “needs” these standards; and five automakers' intervention predicting that absent the regulations, competitors would sell fewer electric vehicles to gain market advantage. The Court rejected arguments that fuel producers needed expert affidavits or declarations from automakers to establish redressability, explaining that requiring such evidence would improperly make standing depend on alignment between plaintiffs and regulated third parties.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court should have vacated and remanded for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider based on corrected facts about when the regulations expire.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion arguing the Court applies standing doctrine inconsistently by accepting commonsense inferences for business plaintiffs while demanding more evidence from civil rights plaintiffs.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: When revoking supervised release and imposing a prison sentence, may a district court consider the sentencing factors in 18 U-S-C § 3553(a)(2)(A)—namely, “the seriousness of the offense,” “promoting respect for the law,” and “just punishment”—even though these factors are not explicitly referenced in the supervised release statute?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that in deciding whether to revoke a term of supervised release, a district court may not consider the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, or provide just punishment for the offense when revoking supervised release. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.When determining whether to revoke supervised release, district courts must consider eight of the ten general sentencing factors listed in 18 U-S-C § 3553(a). The statute specifically excludes § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution for the defendant's underlying criminal offense. This omission creates a strong negative inference under the well-established principle that expressing certain items in a list excludes others not mentioned. The statutory structure reinforces this interpretation, as neighboring provisions governing other types of sentences explicitly require courts to consider all § 3553(a) factors, while the supervised release provisions uniquely exclude retribution.This exclusion aligns with supervised release's rehabilitative purpose in the criminal justice system. Unlike fines, probation, and imprisonment, which serve as primary punishments, supervised release provides postconfinement assistance to ease defendants' transition back into society. Courts must therefore focus on forward-looking sentencing goals—deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation—rather than backward-looking retribution. District courts may consider the nature and circumstances of the original offense only as they relate to these permissible purposes, not as grounds for additional punishment based on the offense's seriousness.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that courts should not consider retribution for any purpose in supervised release proceedings.Justice Jackson authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but criticizing the majority's discussion of what constitutes “offense” as unnecessary and confusing.Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, arguing that the omission of § 3553(a)(2)(A) merely makes its consideration discretionary rather than forbidden and warning that the majority's interpretation creates impractical requirements for sentencing judges.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

En este episodio, Daniel Torres conversa con Alexia Sotomayor, una joven nadadora Peruana que ha representado a su país en múltiples mundiales. A lo largo de la conversación, Alexia comparte su trayectoria en la natación, su preparación para el Mundial en Singapur, y los desafíos que ha enfrentado, incluyendo la salud mental y el proceso de selección universitaria en Estados Unidos. También reflexiona sobre la importancia del apoyo familiar y sus metas de clasificar a los Juegos Olímpicos. En esta conversación, Alexia Sotomayor comparte su experiencia en el ciclo olímpico, la búsqueda de marcas personales y su postulación al comité de atletas de World Aquatics. Discute la importancia del deporte limpio y la educación en el deporte, así como su evolución en redes sociales. También habla sobre su experiencia en una charla TED, superando inseguridades y lesiones, y recuerda competiciones pasadas que han marcado su carrera.Conecta con Alexia:InstagramTiktokVota por Alexia para ser parte del Comite de Atletas de WA!Conecta con nosotros:InstagramObten tu gorra oficial del podcast aqui

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can retailers who would sell a new tobacco product seek judicial review of the FDA's denial of a manufacturer's marketing application under the Tobacco Control Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the Tobacco Control Act's provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA's denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The phrase “adversely affected” is a term of art in administrative law that the Court has consistently interpreted broadly. When Congress uses variations of this phrase across different statutes, the Court presumes it carries the same meaning as in the Administrative Procedure Act—covering anyone “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute.” Congress reinforced this broad interpretation by using “any person” rather than limiting review to “the applicant.” The Court's precedents from other contexts, including employment discrimination and fair housing cases, confirm that “adversely affected” encompasses more than just the direct recipient of agency action. Retailers face a direct, significant impact from denial orders because they lose the opportunity to profit from selling the product and face criminal penalties if they sell it without authorization.The statutory structure confirms Congress intended different scopes for different provisions. While the Act limits challenges to withdrawal of existing approvals to only “the holder of the application,” it uses the broader “any person adversely affected” language for initial denials. This deliberate use of materially different terms creates a presumption that Congress intended different meanings. The FDA's arguments focusing on the application process and confidentiality provisions cannot override the plain language Congress chose for the judicial review provision.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that retailers fall outside the statute's zone of interests because the premarket approval scheme involves only manufacturers and the FDA, with no mechanism for retailer participation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

The Term ended with a whole lot of nonsense. ----- Taking a sledgehammer where a chisel -- or better yet nothing -- would do, the Supreme Court nixed injunctions it didn't like by striking down the power to issue universal injunctions totally and addressed schools teaching that gay people exist by expanding strict scrutiny to parents lodging religious complaints. But at least they whined and took swipes at each other over it! Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor figured out that if the majority wants to hide their rulings, the dissent can characterize them on their own. Also, the University of Florida Law School gave a top prize to a paper advocating a Whites-Only Constitution. The professor? Trump-appointed federal judge. The school's effort to explain itself left a lot to be desired.

The Term ended with a whole lot of nonsense. ----- Taking a sledgehammer where a chisel -- or better yet nothing -- would do, the Supreme Court nixed injunctions it didn't like by striking down the power to issue universal injunctions totally and addressed schools teaching that gay people exist by expanding strict scrutiny to parents lodging religious complaints. But at least they whined and took swipes at each other over it! Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor figured out that if the majority wants to hide their rulings, the dissent can characterize them on their own. Also, the University of Florida Law School gave a top prize to a paper advocating a Whites-Only Constitution. The professor? Trump-appointed federal judge. The school's effort to explain itself left a lot to be desired. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Moving at almost the speed of light and following Justice Sotomayor's “direction”, public interest groups litigating to protect Birthright Citizenship have just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against them, filed a new motion for class action certification and for temporary injunction with a Maryland federal judge. Michael Popok explains how this is exactly what Justice Sotomayor called for in her dissent on Friday, and sets up a battle over the summer in the Supreme Court over whether Birthright Citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment survives. Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – The ruling was 6–3, with the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissenting in favor of the School Board having more control over what children are learning than parents. Indeed, parents have ALL of the power when it comes to their children's education. Clearly, Sotomayor does not know what the “essence of public education” is...

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

The Supreme Court's last day of the term was an exercise of raw power. The six conservative justices gave lower courts the back of their hand, making clear that they — and only they! — will decide the law. Nationwide injunctions are out, and so is stare decisis. Andrew and Liz will break down the power grab, along with Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the howler monkey wing allowed religious parents to opt their kids out of the “religious coercion” of reading books about gay people.   Links: Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf   Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf   Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf   Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf   Mahmoud v Taylor  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf   Trump v. CASA https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Leah, Melissa and Kate roll up their sleeves and unpack last Friday's huge day at the Court, starting with Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case that tested Sam Alito's ability to comprehend picture books. They also break down the outcomes of cases involving age verification for adult entertainment and the nondelegation doctrine. If you missed last Friday's emergency episode on the birthright citizenship case, you can find it here. Hosts' favorite things:Melissa: Jackson and Sotomayor dissents (Mahmoud v. Taylor, Trump v. CASA, Inc.); Outrageous (BritBox); Dream Count, Chimamanda Ngozi AdichieKate: Green-Wood Cemetery's Living Dead, Paige Williams (New Yorker); Dying for Sex (FX on Hulu); Chris Hayes' lecture at the Chautauqua InstitutionLeah: KBJ and Sotomayor dissents; The 21 Best Croissants in New York City Right Now, Mahira Rivers (NYT);  YELLOW, Washington, D.C. Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

It's Monday, June 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus South Korea detains 6 Americans sending Bibles into North Korea South Korean authorities detained six Americans today after they attempted to send 1,600 plastic bottles containing miniature Bibles into North Korea by sea, reports International Christian Concern. In Isaiah 55:11, God says, “My Word that goes out from My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” According to the Gwanghwa Island police, the Americans are being investigated because they allegedly violated the law on disaster management. The Americans reportedly threw the bottles, which also included USB sticks, money, and rice, into the sea, hoping North Koreans would eventually find them washed up on their shore. The police did not disclose the contents of the USB sticks.   Christian missionaries and human rights groups have attempted to send plastic bottles by sea and balloons by air into North Korea. Sadly, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who was just elected June 4, 2025, has pledged to halt such campaigns, arguing that such items could provoke North Korea.   According to Open Doors, North Korea is the most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill clears procedural vote The U.S. Senate advanced the latest version of President Trump's “One Big Beautiful Bill” in a procedural vote on June 28, clearing the way for floor debate on the substance of the sweeping megabill, reports The Epoch Times. This moves Republicans one step closer to delivering on key parts of President Donald Trump's second-term agenda. The bill advanced in a vote of 51 to 49, with enough Republican holdouts joining party leaders to avoid the need for Vice President J.D. Vance's tie-breaking vote and to push the measure forward despite lingering concerns about some of its provisions. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri, two pivotal holdouts, said on June 28 that they would vote to advance the megabill, pointing to revisions unveiled by party leaders on June 27 that addressed some of their earlier objections. Hawley, who had previously objected to proposed Medicaid cuts, told reporters on June 28 that he would back not only the motion to proceed, but also final passage of the bill. He credited his decision to new language in the updated bill that delays implementation of changes to the federal cap on Medicaid provider taxes—a provision he said would ultimately bring more federal funding to Missouri's Medicaid program over the next four years. In an attempt to delay passage of the bill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and his fellow Democrats required that the clerks read the entire 940-page bill out loud, which took 15 hours 55 minutes through yesterday afternoon, reports CBS. The chamber began up to 20 hours of debate on Sunday afternoon which you can watch through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expects a final vote on the package sometime today. Two GOP defections on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill There were two Republicans who voted against advancing Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, reports The Hill.com. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who opposes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who says the legislation would cost his state $38.9 billion in federal Medicaid funding. Three other Republicans, who had wavered, changed their minds.  Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin changed his “no” vote to “aye,” and holdout Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida, and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming also voted yes to advance the bill. The bill had suffered several significant setbacks in the days and hours before coming to the floor, at times appearing to be on shaky ground. Trump blasted Tillis on Truth Social, vowing to interview candidates to run against him in the upcoming senatorial primary. He said, “Looks like Senator Thom Tillis, as usual, wants to tell the Nation that he's giving them a 68% Tax Increase, as opposed to the Biggest Tax Cut in American History! “America wants Reduced Taxes, including NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, AND NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY, Interest Deductions on Cars, Border Security, a Strong Military, and a Bill which is GREAT for our Farmers, Manufacturers and Employment, in general. Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!” Just one day after drawing President Trump's ire for opposing the party's  sweeping domestic policy package, Senator Tillis surprisingly announced that he will not seek a third 6-year term in 2026, reports The Guardian. Trump's bill does defund Planned Parenthood President Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill still includes language to stop forced taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion for one year, reports LifeNews.com. The good news is that Planned Parenthood defunding is retained in the final version of the bill, but the bad news is that the 10 year funding ban has been scaled back to just one year. According to Planned Parenthood's latest annual fiscal report, the organization killed more than 400,000 babies through abortion in 2023 and 2024 and received nearly $800 million from taxpayers. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that stops forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry has been retained in the Senate bill, as we were confident it would, though for one year. This is a huge win.” Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Call your two U.S. Senators ASAP on Monday at 202-224-3121 to urge them to retain the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the bill. That's 202-224-3121. Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan Last Friday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win by allowing it, for now, to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, reports NBC News.  TRUMP: “That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system.” In a 6-3 vote, the court granted the request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they only apply to the states, groups and individuals that sued. TRUMP: “This was a big decision, an amazing decision!”  The White House said, “Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected. Of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia. “Now, the Trump administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country — like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, and stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries.” Appearing on Fox News Channel, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School Professor, explained that this is a major victory for Trump. TURLEY: “This is a huge win for him. It does negate what has been a stumbling block. These judges have been throwing sand in the works in many of these policies, from immigration to birthright citizenship to [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts -- that will presumably now be tamped down. If these judges try to circumvent that, I think they'll find an even more expedited path to a Supreme Court that's going to continue to reverse some of these, lift some of these injunctions.” President Trump agreed wholeheartedly. TRUMP: “We've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers.” Professor Turley was shocked by the forcefulness of Amy Coney Barrett's 96-page majority opinion, which took on leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the author of the 20-page dissent.  Barrett wrote, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. … Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” TURLEY: “The opinion was really radioactive in this takedown of Justice Jackson. I've been covering the Supreme Court for decades. It's rare to see that type of exchange. The important thing to remember is that Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver. “But she didn't do it alone. I mean, her colleagues signed on to this. And I think it's very clear that the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria that seems to be growing a bit on the left side of the court.” Turley cited two examples of the hyperbolic rhetoric of the three leftist judges on the Supreme Court. TURLEY: “It's the hyperbole that's coming out of the dissent that is so notable. Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor, in that Maryland case, said that giving parents the ability to opt out of a few [pro-homosexual/transgender] lessons was going to, ‘create chaos and probably end public education.' Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson saying this could very well essentially be the ‘death of democracy.' It's the type of hyperbole that most justices have avoided.” Even CNN's Michael Smerconish said that Trump is meeting and surpassing expectations. SMERCONISH: “By any objective measure, President Trump has his opponents on the run.” 30 Worldview listeners gave $8,873 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $123,500 goal by today, June 30, to fully fund The Worldview's annual budget for our 6-member team, 30 listeners stepped up to the plate. Our thanks to Frederick in Kennesaw, Georgia who gave $20 as well as Michael in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, Kenyon in Merritt Island, Florida, Leslie in Florham Park, New Jersey, Augustine in Auburn, California,  Anastasia in Beausejour, Manitoba, Canada, and John-William in Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan – each of whom gave $25. We appreciate Tim in Derby, New York who gave $33 as well as Charles from an unknown city, Yvonne in Cornwall, New York, Stephanie in Mesa, Arizona, James and Mary in Glade Valley, North Carolina, Colleen in Goose Creek, South Carolina, Glenn and Linda in Palmdale, California, Timothy and Brenda in Colorado Springs, Colorado, George in Niagara Falls, New York, Keziah in Walpole, New Hampshire, and Bob in Wilmot, South Dakota – each of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Samuel in Bartlett, Tennessee, Elizabeth in Cordova, Illinois, Amy in Snohomish, Washington, Kevin in North Bend, Oregon, Carl and Mary in Chaska, Minnesota, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation – each of whom gave $100. And we were touched by the generosity of Tobi (age 17), Kowa (age 15) Jedidiah (age 14), and Kensington (age 11) in Star, Idaho who pooled their resources and gave $140, Royal in Topeka, Kansas who gave $250, Joe and Becky in Gainesville, Georgia who pledged $40/month for 12 months for a gift of $480, Stuart in Zillah, Washington who gave $500, Stephen in California, Maryland who pledged $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation who gave $5,000. Those 30 Worldview listeners gave a total of $8,873. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $112,959.55!  (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   Wow!  To each one of you who gave Friday and over the weekend, thank you! That means by tonight, we need to raise the final $10,540.45 on this Monday, June 30th, our final day to get across the finish line to fund the 6-member Worldview newscast team. We need to find the final 5 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 8 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. Help fund this one-of-a-kind Christian newscast for another year with accurate news, relevant Bible verses, compelling soundbites, uplifting stories, and practical action steps. Proverbs 12:22 says, “The LORD detests lying lips, but He delights in people who are trustworthy.” We aspire to earn your trust as we report on the news. Stand with us now so we can continue to accurately report the last 24 hours of God's providential story. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, June 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In these episodes, the hosts break down two critical Supreme Court decisions reshaping American politics. The first ruling sharply limits activist district judges' power to issue sweeping national injunctions against presidential policies—a move that curtails what they call “judicial dictatorship” and restores constitutional boundaries. The second case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, defends parental rights by striking down mandatory transgender and LGBTQ storytime in Maryland schools, sparking fierce dissent from Justice Sotomayor, who warned public education itself could be doomed. Meanwhile, the hosts highlight the sudden disappearance of nationwide riots they claim were fueled by NGO funding and Democrat-aligned billionaires—an effort now under federal investigation. They spotlight Florida's “Alligator Alcatraz,” a vast Everglades detention center created by Ron DeSantis to deport migrants en masse, and criticize Republican leaders in other states for failing to help Trump enforce immigration law. Together, these stories illustrate the escalating battle over the courts, the classroom, the streets, and the border—and why the hosts argue 2024 is a defining moment for America's future.

The Supreme Court closed out its term with a string of rulings that divided the justices. The court split 6-3 along ideological lines in opinions June 27 that limited the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions and gave parents the right to opt their children out of classroom instruction that violates their religious beliefs. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler dig into the term end blockbusters and discuss the powerful dissents that accompanied them. In one, Justice Sonia Sotomayor fired back at a majority ruling from Samuel Alito by reprinting a children's book in what it appeared to be its entirety. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Poppy Mulligan and Monty Fynn tell Jim Duffy all about their time as Judicial Assistants at the UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Counsel. Poppy is JA to the Court's Deputy President, Lord Hodge, while Monty has spent the year working for former ‘Treasury Devil' Lord Sales. They describe what they have learned about advocacy and about themselves that they will take into their nascent careers at the Bar, while Jim recounts some of his own experience as Judicial Assistant to Lord Reed and Lord Hodge some 12 years ago. Poppy and Monty recently travelled to America to visit the US Supreme Court and America's federal political institutions, giving them the chance to compare and contrast their own roles with those opposite numbers in Washington – clerks to the likes of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Clarence Thomas. Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.

Tonight on The Last Word: The Supreme Court gives Donald Trump even more power one year after the immunity ruling. Also, Trump family business interests raise ethical concerns. Plus, Trump wields tariffs to stop Canada taxes on tech giants. And a Republican lawmaker in a red state says that state won't survive the Trump budget bill. Laurence Tribe, Tim O'Brien, Rep. Chris Pappas, Mini Timmaraju, and Rep. Kelly Morrison join Ali Velshi.

Moving at almost the speed of light and following Justice Sotomayor's “direction”, public interest groups litigating to protect Birthright Citizenship have just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against them, filed a new motion for class action certification and for temporary injunction with a Maryland federal judge. Michael Popok explains how this is exactly what Justice Sotomayor called for in her dissent on Friday, and sets up a battle over the summer in the Supreme Court over whether Birthright Citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment survives. Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Did Justice Sotomayor just outfox the Trump DOJ by sending out an “invitation” to a Massachusetts federal judge to find a way to circumvent a recent Supreme Court ruling to make sure that deportees obtain due process before being sent to countries like South Sudan or Libya? Michael Popok takes a close look at Sotomayor's dissent, the next steps taken by Judge Murphy to tell the Trump Administration that the Court's ruling doesn't stop his other “remedial” orders, and Trump's DOJ rushing to the Court and asking for a “clarification” because the Judge is being mean and “defiant.” For their buy 1 get 1 50% off deal, head to https://3DayBlinds.com/LEGALAF Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration a major victory, curbing nationwide injunctions from district courts that halted Trump's plans to end birthright citizenship. The court's conservatives argued in a 6-3 ruling that because nationwide injunctions did not exist in the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the nation's founding, lower courts had overstepped in blocking Trump's executive order. Notably, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. In a scathing opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes: “The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.”Also in this episode, the Supreme Court rules in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents are able to opt their children out of pro-LGBTQ books being read in schools.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Schoolchildren bringing claims related to their education under either Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was amended in 1986, Congress explicitly declared that nothing in the IDEA “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under” the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws protecting disabled children's rights. This provision directly repudiates judicial attempts to create special barriers for educational discrimination claims. The Eighth Circuit's rule requiring schoolchildren to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment”—rather than the standard deliberate indifference required in other disability contexts—artificially limits disabled students' ability to vindicate their rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Neither statute's text suggests that educational services claims deserve different treatment than other disability discrimination claims. Both laws use expansive language applying protections to “any person” alleging discrimination, without distinction based on the type of claim.The heightened standard originated in 1982 when the Eighth Circuit attempted to “harmonize” the IDEA with the Rehabilitation Act, reasoning that courts should defer to educators unless they departed grossly from professional standards. This Court made a similar harmonization attempt in 1984, holding the IDEA was the exclusive remedy for educational claims, but Congress swiftly overturned that decision. The Eighth Circuit's continued application of its heightened standard conflicts with Congress's clear directive that the IDEA does not limit other federal antidiscrimination laws. By imposing a higher burden of proof for educational claims compared to other disability discrimination contexts, courts effectively read the IDEA as restricting the independent rights and remedies that Title II and Section 504 provide to disabled children.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggesting the Court should consider in a future case whether intent to discriminate must be proven for all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, not just educational ones.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasizing that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require no showing of improper purpose or animus because discrimination against people with disabilities often results from thoughtlessness rather than malice.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Must a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal file a second notice after the reopening is granted?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require a timely-filed notice of appeal, and a notice filed after the original deadline but before a court grants reopening relates forward to the date reopening is granted, making a second notice unnecessary. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.When civil litigants miss appeal deadlines, federal law provides two exceptions: courts may extend the deadline for excusable neglect or good cause, or reopen the appeal period when a party entitled to notice does not receive it within 21 days of the judgment. The reopening provision creates a new 14-day appeal window starting from the court's reopening order. While a notice filed after this 14-day period cannot confer jurisdiction, a notice filed before reopening is granted is merely premature rather than late. Congress legislated against established common-law principles that premature but adequate notices of appeal relate forward to the entry of the document making an appeal possible. For over a century, courts have applied this principle to avoid dismissing appeals on technicalities when no doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, and to which court.The statute's silence on pre-reopening notices means Congress expected the longstanding relation-forward rule to continue applying. Requiring a second notice after reopening would serve no purpose beyond “empty paper shuffling” when the original notice already provided clear notice of the intent to appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure support this interpretation, as Rules 4(a)(2) and 4(a)(4) codify the principle that premature notices should relate forward when they do not prejudice opposing parties. The 1993 amendments specifically eliminated restrictions on relation-forward to avoid creating traps for litigants, especially pro se litigants who often fail to file second notices. Rule 4(a)(6)'s silence on relation-forward does not create a negative implication prohibiting it, particularly given the Rules' emphasis on securing just determinations and disregarding errors that do not affect substantial rights.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing the same result could be reached without relation-forward principles by treating the filing as a motion with an attached proposed notice of appeal.Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, arguing the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted because the Rules Committee is already studying this issue.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In a 6-3 decision that Justice Sotomayor calls an “abuse of power” by the Supreme Court which turns the nature of Due Process on its head, and rewards the Trump Administration's flagrant violation of federal court orders, the Supreme Court just ruled that human beings without due process or even limited notice can be deported to dangerous countries they are not even from, like South Sudan and Libya. Michael Popok explains how the MAGA majority of the Court just rewarded Trump's bad behavior. Square: Get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at https://square.com/go/legalaf! #squarepod Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran shattered within hours, with Israel accusing Iran of breaking the deal. The two nations have since returned to war. Also, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raises concerns while the Trump administration celebrates a victory on immigration, warning that the rule of law is at risk. Plus, it's election day in America's biggest city. The mayoral primary could redefine New York City and have a significant impact on the Democratic Party. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

This Day in Legal History: Military Selective Service ActOn June 24, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed the Military Selective Service Act into law, establishing a peacetime draft system in the United States. The legislation came amid rising tensions with the Soviet Union, as the early Cold War stoked fears about the need for a ready and scalable military force. This marked the first time the United States instituted a draft during peacetime, following the expiration of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which had been enacted during World War II. The new law required all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants between the ages of 18 and 25 to register with the Selective Service System.The Act granted the president authority to induct men into military service, with deferments available for education, occupation, or family hardship, though these often resulted in significant disparities in who actually served. Implementation began swiftly, with the first draft lottery since World War II conducted in 1948. This system remained in effect throughout the Korean War and into the Vietnam era, evolving with amendments but continuing to shape the composition of the U.S. armed forces.The 1948 Act also laid the groundwork for future national service debates, setting precedents for conscientious objector status and administrative appeals. Critics of the draft pointed to inequities and civil liberties concerns, while proponents argued it was essential for national defense and preparedness. Although the draft was suspended in 1973, the Selective Service System persists today, requiring registration for all male citizens and immigrants, preserving the infrastructure in case of future need. The 1948 legislation signified a turning point in American military policy, marking a transition from a wartime to a sustained peacetime defense posture.The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to resume deporting migrants to third countries without first giving them a chance to explain potential harm they could face there. This decision lifts a lower court injunction requiring due process protections like notice and a hearing before such removals, a move that drew a forceful dissent from the Court's liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the action a “gross abuse” of power, criticizing the Court for enabling potentially dangerous deportations while legal challenges are ongoing.The underlying policy targets migrants—often with criminal records—whose home countries won't accept them back, prompting the administration to seek deportations to other nations. A class action lawsuit challenged the policy, arguing that such deportations without procedural safeguards likely violate the Constitution's due process clause. Judge Brian Murphy had previously blocked removals to places like South Sudan, citing risks including armed conflict and political instability.Despite Murphy's order, the administration continued efforts to deport individuals to countries such as South Sudan and El Salvador, allegedly in defiance of judicial rulings. The administration maintains the policy is lawful and necessary to manage migrant removals. Immigrant advocates say the Court's decision endangers vulnerable individuals and weakens judicial oversight. The ruling reflects ongoing legal tensions surrounding Trump immigration strategies, many of which have now returned to the courts since his return to office.Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is set to begin congressional testimony this week amid political pressure from President Trump to cut interest rates. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling makes clear that Powell, and other Fed governors, cannot be removed over policy disagreements. This means Trump is unlikely to replace Powell before his term as chair ends in May 2026, and he may only get to appoint one additional Fed board member during his current term.Some in Trump's circle have floated the idea of naming a successor now to act as a “shadow” chair, but experts warn that would confuse markets and undermine both the nominee's credibility and the Fed's stability. The Fed's governance structure—with long, staggered terms and a mix of governors and independent regional bank presidents—limits any one president's influence.Despite Trump's calls for immediate rate cuts, Fed officials remain cautious, waiting for more clarity on the economic impact of tariffs and global instability, such as rising tensions with Iran. Interest rate decisions this year have been unanimous, including from Trump-appointed governors. With only two upcoming vacancies, the makeup of the Fed is largely locked in, reinforcing the central bank's independence even in a volatile political climate.Powell is staying at the Fed, with Trump appointments possibly limited | ReutersA federal judge has blocked President Trump's attempt to bar international students from studying at Harvard University, issuing a preliminary injunction that halts the administration's latest move in its ongoing campaign against the Ivy League institution. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the administration's actions likely violated Harvard's First Amendment rights by retaliating against the school for resisting demands to alter its admissions and curriculum practices.Trump had issued a proclamation citing national security concerns, suspending entry of foreign nationals to study at Harvard for six months and directing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider revoking current student visas. Judge Burroughs rejected these justifications, stating the government's effort appeared driven by opposition to Harvard's perceived liberal stance, and warned it posed a threat to core democratic freedoms.This ruling extends an earlier order blocking similar measures and comes as Harvard fights back through two separate lawsuits—one to protect $2.5 billion in frozen funding, and another to safeguard its ability to host international students. Nearly 6,800 foreign students attend Harvard, representing about 27% of the student body. Homeland Security had previously attempted to strip the university's certification to enroll foreign students, also without presenting substantive evidence.Accusations from the administration included claims of antisemitism and ties to China, which Harvard disputes. The court's decision allows Harvard to continue welcoming international students while litigation continues, underscoring judicial resistance to executive overreach into higher education autonomy.US judge blocks Trump plan to close Harvard's doors to international students | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, which proposes a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, is more about political optics than sound policy. While the bill claims to combat foreign influence and protect American businesses, it fails on both fronts. It doesn't differentiate between foreign and domestic investors and ignores how economic costs are actually distributed—those costs won't be eaten by funders but passed down to plaintiffs and, ultimately, to defendants via higher settlements. This is basic economics, not a national security fix.We've seen this before with contingent-fee arrangements, where higher costs didn't dampen litigation but merely increased settlement demands. The proposed tax would similarly inflate litigation costs without reducing the flow of capital into the system. It won't stop litigation or foreign investment—it'll just make lawsuits more expensive for everyone involved, including the very corporations the bill purports to protect.The real issue, if one believes foreign interference is a genuine threat, is disclosure—not taxation. Congress could require transparency in litigation finance arrangements instead of disguising a foreign policy concern as a tax policy. By pitching a punitive tax as a protective measure, lawmakers are undermining both tax integrity and judicial credibility. This bill won't fix the problem it pretends to solve; it just sends a message that certain markets are politically disfavored and fair game for symbolic taxation.Litigation Funding Tax Proposal Solves Nothing Besides Optics 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

A fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran shattered within hours, with Israel accusing Iran of breaking the deal. The two nations have since returned to war. Also, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raises concerns while the Trump administration celebrates a victory on immigration, warning that the rule of law is at risk. Plus, it's election day in America's biggest city. The mayoral primary could redefine New York City and have a significant impact on the Democratic Party. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

This week on Queer News, we begin with the sounds of the Gender Liberation movement, protesting the United States v. Skrmetti decision, which upholds Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. We remember Taylor Casey, who disappeared one year ago in the Bahamas, and report on the Trump administration's cruel move to defund the LGBTQ youth lifeline. But there's a spark of justice—Reagan-appointed judges are ruling for the people, declaring NIH grant cuts unconstitutional. And in Culture & Entertainment, joy wins with the long-awaited premiere of Noah's Arc: The Movie, reviewed by our dynamic duo Benjamin Coy & Corey Antonio Rose. Plus, The Ultimatum: Queer Love returns with more lesbian drama and messy television we can't stop watching.

It's Thursday, June 19th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark and Adam McManus Christian Indonesian boy died after Muslim students beat him An eight-year-old Christian boy died in Indonesia from a ruptured appendix on May 26th. This came days after older Muslim students beat him severely, sending him to the hospital.  Khristopel Butarbutar faced bullying for his faith leading up to his death. Morning Star News reports his father said, “A week before, he had been bullied a lot. The perpetrators speak about his ethnicity, his religion.” Sadly, bullying at schools in Indonesia is escalating. There were 1,478 cases in 2023, up from 119 cases in 2020. Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints.” United Kingdom decriminalized abortion up to birth The U.K. House of Commons voted Tuesday to effectively decriminalize abortion up to birth in England and Wales. The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill ends the prosecution of women for getting an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The measure must also pass in the House of Lords.  Catherine Robinson with Right To Life UK said, “This is the first time this extreme abortion amendment has been debated in the House of Commons, and there has been no consultation with the public on this seismic law change. We will be fighting this amendment at every stage in the [House of] Lords.” Supreme Court upholds state's right to ban transgender surgeries for kids In the United States, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law yesterday that protects minors from transgender drugs and surgeries. The high court ruled 6-3 in the case. The liberal dissenters were Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan. and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that the issue should be decided by the state. He said, “Having concluded that [the law] does not [violate the equal protection clause], we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.” The ruling will also support 26 other states with similar laws to protect children from transgender drugs and surgeries.  Kraft/Heinz will cut artificial dyes from food The Kraft Heinz Company announced Tuesday it will cut artificial dyes from its U.S. food products by 2027. This comes after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced measures in April to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation's food supply. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said, “For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent. … That era is coming to an end.” Daily Bible readers thrive more than non-daily Bible readers The American Bible Society released the third chapter of its State of the Bible USA 2025 report. The survey used the Human Flourishing Index from Harvard University which measures six domains of life, including satisfaction, health, purpose, character, and social relationships. The report found people who read the Bible every day scored 7.9 out of 10 on the index compared to 6.8 for those who never read the Bible. Also, younger generations tend to have the lowest levels of flourishing. However, both Gen Zers and Millennials who engage regularly with Scripture scored an impressive average of 8.1 on the index.  Psalm 119:105 says, “Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Old Nordic letters carved into Canadian bedrock spell the Lord's Prayer Archaeologists recently announced the meaning of centuries-old Nordic runes, or alphabet letters, that were carved into the Canadian bedrock, reports CBC News.  Ryan Primrose, the director of the Ontario Centre for Archaeological Education, has been studying the letters since their discovery in 2018.  He believes they were written by Swedes who were hired to work at trading posts in the Canadian wilderness in the 1800s.  The 255 characters of Nordic runes or alphabet actually spell out the words of the Lord's Prayer in Swedish. They appear to come from a 1611 runic version of the prayer. The runes cover a square of about four feet by five feet and probably took weeks to carve. Worldview listeners in Texas and California share their hearts I invited Worldview listeners to share what they enjoy about the newscast in 2-6 sentences by email.  You can share your thoughts — along with your full name, city and state — and send it to adam@TheWorldview.com Christy Quinn in Grapevine, Texas said, “We love listening to The Worldview in 5 Minutes as a family. My 10-year-old says she enjoys hearing about Christians around the world, what they are doing to God's glory and how the world treats them. I enjoy the Biblical perspective on current events and politics including those sound bites. The intro music and your closing ‘Seize the day for Jesus Christ' is a hit. My kids are excited to listen.” Ben Duhem in Eureka, California said, “The Worldview helps my wife and I stay on the same page about certain topics and geopolitical events. I read dozens of articles every day and am extremely well-informed about current events, but I mostly carry the burden alone. “I like to keep my wife and children in somewhat of a protective bubble to maintain their innocence, joy, and hope. When I share too much of what I read, my wife becomes very disheartened. She is busy homeschooling, gardening, cooking, and cleaning, all day, every day. So, she does not have time to read the news or process the political analysis that I used to try to distill for her. “The Worldview is the one source of news she tries to make time for each day. It's short and sweet. And she receives inspiration from the scriptures and calls to join in prayer. So, it's the one source of news that she asks me about and we discuss and pray about together. It helps us stay bonded.” 3 Worldview listeners gave $849 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $92,625 goal by this Friday, June 20th  to fund three-quarters of The Worldview newscast's annual budget for our 6-member team, 3  listeners stepped up to the plate. We are so grateful for Michele in Kindersley, Saskatchewan, Canada who gave $25, Richard in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who gave $300, and Providence Associates in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia which gave $524. Those 3 Worldview listeners gave a total of $849. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $47,745.70 (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   Toward this Friday, June 20th's goal of $92,625, we need to raise $44,879.30. Remember, if you are one of the final 2 people who will give a one-time gift of $1,000, Scooter in Naples, Florida will match you with a corresponding $1,000 gift of his own.  If you believe in what we're doing, if you look forward to reading the transcript or listening to the newscast, please go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right. Your gift will help us fund the 6-member Worldview newscast team for another fiscal year. Amen and Amen! Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, June 19th, in the year of our Lord 2025.  Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

This Day in Legal History: Georgia v. McCollumOn June 18, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), holding that criminal defendants cannot use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. This decision extended the logic of Batson v. Kentucky—which barred prosecutors from racially discriminatory jury strikes—to defense attorneys, ensuring both sides are bound by the Equal Protection Clause. The case involved white defendants in Georgia who sought to remove Black jurors, prompting the state to challenge the defense's strikes as racially biased.The Court, in a 7–2 opinion written by Justice Blackmun, reasoned that racial discrimination in jury selection, regardless of the source, undermines public confidence in the justice system and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. It emphasized that the courtroom is not a private forum and that all participants—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges—must adhere to constitutional principles.Importantly, the decision addressed the state action requirement, acknowledging that while defense attorneys are not state actors in the traditional sense, their participation in the jury selection process is conducted under judicial supervision and is thus attributable to the state. This broadened the scope of equal protection enforcement in criminal proceedings.The ruling was a major step toward eradicating racial bias in the judicial process, reinforcing that justice must not only be impartial but also be perceived as such. By holding defense attorneys to the same standard as prosecutors, the Court ensured that the integrity of jury selection is preserved across the board. The decision also highlighted the evolving understanding of the judiciary's role in preventing systemic discrimination, even in adversarial settings.Georgia v. McCollum remains a critical precedent in both constitutional law and criminal procedure, illustrating the Court's commitment to fairness in one of the most fundamental aspects of the legal system—trial by jury.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick expanded a prior injunction, blocking the Trump administration's passport policy that restricted transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals from obtaining passports reflecting their gender identity. Kobick found that the State Department's revised policy—mandating passports list only “biological” sex at birth—likely violated the Fifth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and reflecting irrational bias.Initially, the injunction applied only to six plaintiffs, but Kobick's ruling now grants class-action status, halting enforcement of the policy nationwide. The policy stems from an executive order signed by Trump after returning to office in January 2025, directing all federal agencies to recognize only two sexes and abandon the gender marker flexibility introduced under the Biden administration in 2022.The ruling marks a legal setback for the administration's effort to reimpose binary sex classifications across federal documents. The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, called it a critical win for transgender rights. The White House condemned the ruling as judicial overreach. The broader case remains ongoing.US judge blocks Trump passport policy targeting transgender people | ReutersEducational toy company Learning Resources petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs before lower court appeals conclude. The company argues that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs is unconstitutional and economically damaging, citing a May 29 district court ruling that found the tariffs illegal. That decision, however, is currently stayed pending appeal.Learning Resources' CEO, Rick Woldenberg, warned that delaying Supreme Court review could cost American businesses up to $150 billion due to ongoing tariff-related costs. He described the tariffs as a hidden tax and accused the government of forcing importers to act as involuntary tax collectors.Two federal courts have already ruled against Trump's interpretation of IEEPA, a law historically used for targeted sanctions, not general trade policy. The administration defends the tariffs as a legal response to national emergencies like trade imbalances and drug trafficking, though critics say the justification is legally thin and economically harmful.While rare, the Supreme Court has expedited cases of national significance in the past, such as Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. A key appeals court hearing on Trump's tariff authority is scheduled for July 31.Small business seeks early Supreme Court review of Trump's tariffs | ReutersA federal judge has also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a new Department of Defense policy that would cap indirect cost reimbursements to universities at 15%. The move came in response to a lawsuit filed by 12 research institutions—including MIT and Johns Hopkins—as well as major academic associations. These groups argued that the cap violated existing federal regulations and congressional intent.The Department of Defense had framed the policy as a cost-saving measure, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming it could save up to $900 million annually. However, universities rely on indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure, staff, and equipment that support research across multiple projects—not just the ones directly funded.The ruling by Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, mirrors earlier judicial blocks of similar funding cuts proposed by the NIH and Department of Energy. A hearing is scheduled for July 2 to determine whether a longer-term injunction should be issued. The case highlights growing legal resistance to the administration's broader push to reduce federal spending on scientific research.US judge blocks Defense Department from slashing federal research funding | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors in a 6–3 decision that sets a national precedent and effectively greenlights similar restrictions in over 20 states. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the law neither classifies based on sex nor targets transgender status, and thus only required rational basis review—not heightened constitutional scrutiny. The Court accepted Tennessee's framing of the law as neutral and medically cautious, not discriminatory, citing European health policy shifts and purported uncertainty around gender-affirming care as justification.Critics, including the Court's liberal bloc, argued the law does in fact discriminate based on sex and gender identity by banning medical treatment only when it aims to affirm a transgender identity. Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, emphasized that the law's language and application plainly hinge on a minor's “sex as assigned at birth,” drawing troubling parallels to older jurisprudence that permitted covert forms of discrimination under the guise of neutrality.The ruling marks a major rollback of legal protections for transgender youth, ignoring years of precedent that increasingly recognized transgender identity as a constitutionally protected status. By lowering the scrutiny threshold and deferring to legislative “uncertainty,” the Court provided a road map for states to restrict gender-affirming care through general, non-explicitly discriminatory language. The majority's refusal to engage with medical consensus or the real-world impact on transgender youth reveals a troubling judicial posture: one that values legislative deference over individual rights, even when the stakes include physical and psychological harm to a vulnerable group.Supreme Court Upholds Curbs on Treatment for Transgender Minors 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

It's that time of year again... welcome to Decision Season 2025. In one of the most consequential rulings of the term, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Justice Sotomayor's dissent pulls no punches: “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”Plus, a preview of the other blockbuster cases yet to be released later this month, and Dave Ball discovers the wild world of emojis in the SCOTUSblog live chat.

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices