Podcast appearances and mentions of Sonia Sotomayor

La Xunta de Galicia ha declarado Bien de Interés Cultural (BIC) el palacio de Lourizán en Pontevedra. Se trata de un edificio emblemático, pendiente de rehabilitación,que fue residencia de verano de Eugenio Montero Ríos, un destacado político de finales del siglo XIX que fue presidente del Gobierno de España a comienzos del XXI. En origen, la finca donde se encuentra el edificio fue una granja agropecuaria ligada también a ilustres apellidos gallegos como los Sotomayor o Montenegro. Tuvo también visitantes ilustres como Góngora del que se dice que escribió aquí parte de sus "Soledades". Montero Ríos también la convirtió en sede institucional donde, según se cuenta, preparó el Tratado de París que puso fin a la guerra con Estados Unidos en 1898.El recinto cuenta también con un magnífico arboreto que exhibe especies singulares de los cinco continentes.La Xunta ha puesto en marcha un proyecto de rehabilitación no exento de cierta polémica porque se prevé en él un hotel de cuatro estrellas.Escuchar audio

In this electric episode of Badlands Daily, CannCon and Ashe in America unpack a tidal wave of political, economic, and cultural firestorms. Leading the charge is Trump's controversial refugee policy shift, granting sanctuary to persecuted white South African farmers. The hosts dive into the MSM and NGO meltdowns over the decision, with Al Sharpton and Episcopal charities losing their minds over the idea of refugee status being extended to anyone who isn't part of the globalist agenda. Next up: the weekend's chaos at a New Jersey ICE facility, where leftist clergy and NGO activists formed a human blockade, allegedly preventing emergency vehicles from entering. Ashe and CannCon expose the hypocrisy of selective enforcement and draw scathing comparisons to J6 prosecutions. The show also breaks down the staggering April spike in U.S. customs revenue, $16.3 billion, proving Trump's tariff policies are working. They then dissect the debut of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” with wins like work requirements for Medicaid, tax-free tips, and MAGA savings accounts for kids, but warn it lacks meaningful spending cuts. Senator Ron Johnson's critique becomes a jumping-off point for a broader discussion on runaway federal debt, the failure of Congress, and Mike Johnson's disappointing leadership. With a mix of legal insight, biting sarcasm, and offbeat humor, including commentary on zombie shows, AI security concerns over Qatar's luxury jet gift, and Justice Sotomayor's outrageous ABA comments, this episode is a full-spectrum takedown of regime narratives and a celebration of the political awakening in real time.

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Language Translating Headphones, ADHD Interest Driven Brains, Analogy Thinking, Military Trans Ban, Newark Mayor Arrest, democrat Performance Art, Marc Elias, Norm Eisen, Trump's Crypto Holdings, Justice Sotomayor, Jen Psaki, Rachael Maddow, Jamie Dimon, Pacific Palisades Rebuilding, Federal Agency Reorg Blocked, South African White Refugees, Ed Martin, Weaponization Work Group, Trump Netanyahu Relationship, GOP Tax Package, CA Migrant Healthcare Cost, India Pakistan Cease Fire, India's X Censorship Demand, China Negotiations, Greenland Acquisition, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

Donald Trump is intensifying his legal challenges with the courts by pushing for aggressive deportation policies and reducing the size of the federal government. Although federal judges have halted some of these efforts, the moves have unsettled many in the judiciary, leading Supreme Court justices to publicly defend judicial independence and call on attorneys to uphold the rule of law. Former Attorney General Eric Holder joins The Weekend to discuss.

#puertorico #jueza #sotomayor La jueza asociada del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos, recibió el Premio Mundial a la Paz y a la Libertad, en el Congreso Mundial del Derecho celabrado hasta hoy en la República Dominicana. | En Morovis se hicieron contratos por más de medio millón sin subasta. | Bomba en Japón. No te la pierdas. ¡Conéctate, comenta y comparte! #periodismo #periodismoindependiente #periodismodigital

#puertorico #jueza #sotomayor La jueza asociada del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos, recibió el Premio Mundial a la Paz y a la Libertad, en el Congreso Mundial del Derecho celabrado hasta hoy en la República Dominicana. | En Morovis se hicieron contratos por más de medio millón sin subasta. | Bomba en Japón. No te la pierdas. ¡Conéctate, comenta y comparte! #periodismo #periodismoindependiente #periodismodigital

Here's the thing: no matter what your catalyst is, whether it's a layoff or you quit and pivoted, you'll always end up where you need to be. Take our guest, Lucia, for example. She was laid off during the pandemic, and soon after, she realized her dream wasn't to be an art director for Amazon. That company, by the way, laid off her entire team as soon as things got rough. Now that she had the freedom to take a breath and think about what she actually wanted to do, Lucia knew she wanted to work for herself and be an illustrator. Now, she's a successful working artist who has partnered with some of the biggest brands in the world.    Lucia Diaz is a published illustrator and co-author of Viva Latina, created in collaboration with Sandra Velasquez, the visionary CEO of Nopalera. As a sought-after public speaker, she has delivered impactful talks for prestigious brands, including American Express, Target, WBENC, We All Grow Latina, and Latinas in Tech. In her work as an illustrator, she has partnered with iconic global brands such as DIOR, Tiffany & Co., CHANEL, Giorgio Armani, SAKS, DVF, and Carolina Herrera, elevating events through live sketching and art that captures the essence of culture and elegance. Lucia Diaz's passion for illustration stems from a deep desire to ensure Latinas see themselves authentically represented.    Growing up, the only Latina she encountered in history books was Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This lack of visibility inspired her to take action. Studies indicate that Latinas constitute only 3-5% of the figures featured in U.S. history textbooks—a statistic that does not reflect their profound contributions to America's legacy. Through her art and storytelling, she illuminates the power of representation. Whether creating inspiring illustrations or leading dynamic workshops, her mission is to celebrate Latinas, amplify their voices, and ensure young girls—like her goddaughter—see themselves in stories of wisdom, strength, and achievement.   In this week's episode, she shares her story of how she went from being a child of a low-income family to working with luxury brands and having an extremely coveted mentor. She went from being laid off to creating a successful business that works with some of the biggest brands in the world. She now shares her story and encourages other artists to start working for themselves rather than relying on corporate entities that don't care about them. Listen to Lucia's episode for incredible entrepreneurial tips, real-life experiences, and heartfelt connections now.    Follow Lucia on: Instagram: @holaluciadiaz LinkedIn: Lucia Diaz LLC Book Link + Subscribe: https://fearlessyaya.com/subscribe/ Check out Lucia's services here: https://byluciadiaz.com/services    Follow Erika on: Instagram @‌theerikacruzTikTok @‌theerikacruzLinkedIn Website: http://www.theerikacruz.com How to work with Erika: Join the waitlist for the Courage Driven Latina program here. Join the waitlist for the Magnetic Mastermind here.   Podcast production for this episode was provided by CCST.

This Day in Legal History: “Law Day” is BornOn this day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation that did more than just slap a new label on the calendar—it attempted to reframe the ideological narrative of the Cold War itself. With Presidential Proclamation 3221, Eisenhower officially designated May 1 as Law Day, a symbolic counterweight to May Day, the international workers' holiday long associated with labor movements, socialist solidarity, and, in the American imagination, the creeping specter of communism.What better way to combat revolutionary fervor than with a celebration of legal order?Pushed by the American Bar Association, Law Day wasn't just a feel-good civics moment; it was a strategic act of Cold War messaging. While the Soviet bloc paraded tanks through Red Square, the U.S. would parade its Constitution and wax poetic about the rule of law. In short, May Day was about the workers; Law Day was about the lawyers—and the system they claimed safeguarded liberty.But this wasn't just symbolic posturing. In 1961, Congress gave Law Day teeth by writing it into the U.S. Code (36 U.S.C. § 113), mandating that May 1 be observed with educational programs, bar association events, and a national reaffirmation of the “ideal of equality and justice under law.”Cynics might call it Constitution cosplay. Advocates call it civic literacy.Either way, Law Day has endured. Each year, the President issues a formal proclamation with a new theme—ranging from the judiciary's independence to access to justice. The ABA leads events, schools hold mock trials, and the legal community gets a rare day in the spotlight.In the grand tradition of American holidays, Law Day may not come with a day off or department store sales. But it's a reminder that the U.S. doesn't just celebrate its laws when it's convenient—it does so deliberately, and sometimes, geopolitically.A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 injunction meant to promote competition in its App Store by improperly restricting developers' payment options. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple defied her prior order in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. The judge referred Apple and its vice president of finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt investigation, citing misleading testimony and willful noncompliance. She emphasized that Apple had treated the injunction as a negotiation rather than a binding mandate.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the ruling as a win for developers and said Fortnite could return to the App Store soon. Apple had previously removed Epic's account after it allowed users to bypass Apple's in-app payment system. Despite the ruling, Apple maintains it made extensive efforts to comply while protecting its business model and plans to appeal. Epic argued that Apple continued to stifle competition by imposing a new 27% fee on external purchases and deterring users through warning messages. The judge rejected Apple's request to delay enforcement of her ruling and barred the company from interfering with developers' ability to communicate with users or imposing the new fee.US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store | ReutersPalestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University graduate student and longtime Vermont resident, was released from U.S. immigration custody after a judge ruled he could remain free while contesting his deportation. The case stems from the Trump administration's efforts to remove non-citizen students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, arguing such activism threatens U.S. foreign policy. Mahdawi, who was arrested during a citizenship interview, has not been charged with any crime. Judge Geoffrey Crawford found he posed no danger or flight risk and compared the political environment to McCarthy-era crackdowns on dissent.Crawford emphasized that Mahdawi's peaceful activism was protected by the First Amendment, even as a non-citizen. Mahdawi was greeted by supporters waving Palestinian flags as he denounced his detention and vowed not to be intimidated. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision, accusing Mahdawi of glorifying violence and supporting terrorism, although no evidence or charges of such conduct were presented in court.Members of Vermont's congressional delegation condemned the administration's actions as a violation of due process and free speech. Mahdawi's release was seen as a symbolic blow to broader efforts targeting pro-Palestinian foreign students, while others in similar situations remain jailed. Columbia University reaffirmed that legal protections apply to all residents, regardless of citizenship status.The relevant takeaway here revolves around the First Amendment rights of non-citizens – Judge Crawford's ruling affirmed that lawful non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. This principle was central to Mahdawi's release, reinforcing the legal standard that political expression—even controversial or unpopular—is not grounds for detention or deportation.Palestinian student released on bail as he challenges deportation from US | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco is set to consider a critical legal question in ongoing copyright disputes involving artificial intelligence: whether Meta Platforms made "fair use" of copyrighted books when training its Llama language model. The case, brought by authors including Junot Díaz and Sarah Silverman, accuses Meta of using pirated copies of their work without permission or payment. Meta argues that its use was transformative, enabling Llama to perform diverse tasks like tutoring, translation, coding, and creative writing—without replicating or replacing the original works.The outcome could significantly impact similar lawsuits filed against other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, all hinging on how courts interpret fair use in the context of AI training. Meta contends that its LLM's use of copyrighted material is covered under fair use because it generates new and transformative outputs, rather than duplicating the authors' content. Plaintiffs argue that this type of use violates copyright protections by extracting and repurposing the expressive value of their works for commercial AI systems.Technology firms warn that requiring licenses for such training could impede AI innovation and economic growth. Authors and content creators, on the other hand, view the unlicensed use as a threat to their financial and creative interests.Judge in Meta case weighs key question for AI copyright lawsuits | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appears sharply divided over whether states can prohibit religious charter schools from receiving public funding, in a case that could significantly alter the legal landscape for church-state separation in education. The case centers on Oklahoma's rejection of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's bid to become the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that excluding religious schools constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, while liberal justices emphasized the importance of maintaining a secular public education system.Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a crucial swing vote. He questioned both sides, at times referencing prior rulings favoring religious institutions, but also signaling discomfort with the broader implications of authorizing religious charter schools. Justice Sotomayor raised hypothetical concerns about curriculum control, such as schools refusing to teach evolution or U.S. history topics like slavery.The case could affect charter school laws in up to 46 states and has implications for federal charter school funding, which mandates nonsectarian instruction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, increasing the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave Oklahoma's decision to block St. Isidore intact without setting a national precedent.This case hinges on the constitutional balance between prohibiting government endorsement of religion (Establishment Clause) and ensuring equal treatment of religious institutions (Free Exercise Clause). The justices' interpretations of these principles will guide whether public funds can support explicitly religious charter schools.Supreme Court Signals Divide on Religious Charter Schools - Bloomberg 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

Share your thoughts and comments by sending me a text messageS.11 E.32 During his first term in office, President Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices. In this second term in office, will President Trump have the opportunity for more judicial appointments with regard to the highest court in America? In this episode, I discuss the matter.ABOUT: Tawsif Anam is a nationally published writer, award-winning public policy professional, and speaker. He has experience serving in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors in United States and overseas. Anam earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and a Master of Public Affairs degree from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Tawsif Anam's opinions have been published by national, state, and local publications in the United States, such as USA Today, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Western Journal, The Boston Globe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin State Journal, The Capital Times, and The Dodgeville Chronicle. His writings have also appeared in major publications in Bangladesh including, but not limited to, The Daily Star and The Financial Express. Visit my website www.tawsifanam.net Visit my blog: https://tawsifanam.net/blog/ Read my published opinions: https://tawsifanam.net/published-articles/ Check out my books: https://tawsifanam.net/books/

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Explore how the Supreme Court Justices responded to oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, debating parental authority, religious freedom, and LGBTQ+ educational content. Justice Jackson questioned burden on religious exercise, while Sotomayor and Alito clashed over same-sex marriage portrayal. Plus, Trump's reaction to Harvard's lawsuit, analysis and potential future implications.

Ruth Amarilis Rodríguez Sotomayor fue una de las investigadoras de la historia americana y mundial.

Ruth Amarilis Rodríguez Sotomayor fue una de las investigadoras de la historia americana y mundial.

On this episode of the podcast, Co-Founder of Mom's For Liberty and Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Tiffany Justice breaks down the latest Supreme Court debate over parental rights and school content. Justice dives into the high-profile Montgomery County case, where parents were denied the ability to opt their children out of a pride-themed storybook collection. She highlights the split among justices, with Kagan and Barrett backing parental authority, while Sotomayor and Jackson raised First Amendment concerns.Additionally, Justice discussed the nationwide move to phase out synthetic food dyes by the end of 2026, urging parents to stay informed about what their children are consuming.You can follow the great work and keep up with Tiffany Justice by following her on X: @4TiffanyJustice.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

'Growing heat': Sotomayor spars with Alito during LGBTQ classroom books case Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ’s Afternoon Drive Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram --- Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

'Growing heat': Sotomayor spars with Alito during LGBTQ classroom books case Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ’s Afternoon Drive Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram --- Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's show, LIVE on Thunderous Radio (Stream 2) https://thunderousradio.com at 3:30 pm CT, 4:30 pm ET: Run For The Border: Judge quits after suspected Tren de Aragua gang member found living at his home! - Top Trump officials file charges against illegal immigrant after Fox News exposes early release plans - Federal judge issues temporary restraining order against Trump deporting people under Alien Enemies Act - Trump admin files first racketeering charges against massive migrant terrorist group present in U.S. - Airforce General Guillot claims illegal Southern Border crossings dip 97 percent - Democratic strategist warns party against making a 'martyr' out of Abrego Garcia - Barbara Jordan's common sense immigration blueprint shelved after her death, revealed - We'll examine. School Daze: Justice Kavanaugh shocked State founded on religious liberty now won't let parents opt kids out of LGBTQ storybooks - SUPREME COURT 'Growing heat' Sotomayor spars with Alito during LGBTQ classroom books case - Law professor Jonathan Turley claims teachers 'are killing the institution of public education - 'Fox news host says "don't call me sweetheart," at patronizing remark during interview from high-powered teacher union chief - we'll analyze. Shut Up: Poll shows Americans losing appetite for censorship of ‘false' information - DNI releases secret Biden plan raising serious civil liberties concerns, wanted to use censorship, de-banking, gun control, even 'non-criminal behavior' to attack - we'll explore. Plus, DOJ Chief Pam Bondi launches task force to combat anti-Christian bias - Franklin Graham speculates why millions of young Americans are returning to Christianity. http://www.spreaker.com/show/christian-talk-that-rocks https://christiantalkthatrocks.net or http://christiantalkthatrocks.com #illegalaliens #deportation #FedralJudge #Trump #Democrats #Zolensky #SCOTUS #parentalrights #schools #LGBTQ+ #censorship #Biden #DNI #MS13 #TDA #FranklinGraham #antiChristianbias

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a plaintiff state a claim under ERISA's provision prohibiting a plan fiduciary from knowingly engaging in transactions with barred parties, solely by alleging that such a transaction took place?The case was decided on April 17, 2025.The Supreme Court held that To state a claim under Section 1106(a)(1)(C) of ERISA, a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements listed in that provision itself: that a plan fiduciary knowingly caused the plan to engage in a transaction involving goods, services, or facilities with a party in interest. The plaintiff is not required to plead that the transaction does not qualify for an exemption under Section 1108. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.Section 1106(a)(1)(C) establishes a clear, categorical prohibition on certain transactions between a pension plan and a party in interest. ERISA's structure places relevant exemptions, including those for reasonable and necessary services under Section 1108(b)(2)(A), in a separate statutory provision. Because those exemptions are laid out apart from the prohibitions and refer back to conduct already defined as unlawful, they function as affirmative defenses. As a result, plan fiduciaries who wish to invoke an exemption bear the burden of pleading and proving it. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are not obliged to anticipate and refute every possible statutory or regulatory exemption.Reading exemptions as affirmative defenses also aligns with longstanding legal principles and avoids unworkable results. Requiring plaintiffs to negate all exemptions—especially when ERISA includes 21 statutory and hundreds of regulatory exemptions—would be impractical and unfair, particularly because the relevant facts are often in the defendant's possession. Procedural safeguards such as pleading requirements, discovery limits, and Rule 11 sanctions enable federal courts to deter and manage meritless litigation without shifting the pleading burden to plaintiffs. Consequently, only the elements in Section 1106(a)(1)(C) must be pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss.Justice Samuel Alito joined the majority opinion in full and authored a concurrence, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

pWotD Episode 2905: Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 228,727 views on Tuesday, 15 April 2025 our article of the day is Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador who was illegally deported from the United States on March 15, 2025, in what the Trump administration called "an administrative error." He was then imprisoned without trial in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a maximum security prison in El Salvador, despite never having been charged with or convicted of a crime in either country. His lawyers argue that his imprisonment is part of the agreement to jail U. S. deportees there in exchange for payment. The administration has defended the deportation in the press by accusing Abrego Garcia of membership in the MS-13 gang, a U. S.-designated terrorist organization, based on a not-fully adjudicated claim related to immigration court proceedings in 2019, which Garcia had denied.Abrego Garcia illegally immigrated to the U. S. in 2011 at the age of 16. He had lived and worked in the country legally since 2019, when an immigration judge granted him "withholding of removal" status, a rare alternative to asylum, over the threat to his life from gang violence in El Salvador if deported. At the time of his deportation in 2025, he was living in Maryland with his wife and children, all American citizens, and reporting to U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) annually.On April 10, 2025, the U. S. Supreme Court found Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador to be illegal. The court rejected the administration's defense that they had no jurisdiction over El Salvador to bring him back, with Justice Sotomayor noting that the argument implied the government "could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene." The Supreme Court required the U. S. to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release, but stopped short of a lower court's order to both "facilitate and effectuate" his return. The administration took this to mean that it has no obligation to arrange for Abrego Garcia's return and can fulfill its obligation to "facilitate" his release by admitting him into the U. S. and providing a plane if El Salvador chooses to release him, which President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele refuses to do saying he would not "smuggle a terrorist into the United States". Abrego Garcia's deportation has garnered significant attention, highlighting issues within the U. S. immigration system and the immigration policy of Trump's second administration.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 02:16 UTC on Wednesday, 16 April 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Russell.

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School (Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

Tonight on The Last Word: The Supreme Court orders the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of a mistakenly deported Maryland man. Also, Democrats demand an inquiry around the timing of the Trump tariff pause. Plus, seven GOP senators defy MAGA and back a bill to curb Trump tariff powers. And Donald Trump wants the Justice Department to investigate two first-term officials who criticized him. Andrew Weissmann, Sen. Ruben Gallego, and Sen. Maria Cantwell join Lawrence O'Donnell.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Hands President Trump ANOTHER Major Victory!  The media and Trump critics are spinning yesterday's SCOTUS ruling as a loss for Trump and a win for an MS-13 terrorist, Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia. But the truth? It's a YUGE win for Trump and a devastating blow to their narrative! In this LIVE breakdown, I dive into the Supreme Court's ruling, debunking the lies from District Judge Paula Xinis and the media. Contrary to their claims, SCOTUS does NOT order Trump to bring Abrego-Garcia back from El Salvador's CECOT prison to the U.S. In fact, the ruling explicitly frees Trump from any obligation to make that happen. This is a clear smackdown of Judge Xinis' overreaching, unconstitutional order!I'll also expose the distortions in the Sotomayor-led dissent (joined by Kagan and Jackson) and explain why even they didn't fully back Xinis' flawed ruling. Join me as I unpack all the evidence, break down the law, and translate it into plain English for you. Don't miss this deep dive into another Trump triumph at SCOTUS!  Hit that subscribe button, smash the like, and turn on notifications so you never miss the truth! #Trump #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #MS13 #Justice

It's been a whirlwind of courtroom drama and legal battles surrounding Donald Trump's trials this past week. Just days ago, the Trump administration faced a major challenge in the Supreme Court over its use of the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old law invoked to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan nationals accused of gang ties. The court proceedings revealed a chaotic rush to deport individuals before their legal rights could even be argued. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent was scathing, highlighting what she called a covert move by the administration to bypass due process—a hallmark of constitutional law. Critics argue that this case underscores a broader pattern within the administration's legal maneuvering.Meanwhile, Trump's legal issues in New York remain a focal point. While he may now have the title of president again, his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records is still a topic of debate. He was sentenced earlier this year to an “unconditional discharge,” meaning no jail time or fines, but the conviction officially stands. Overwhelming evidence presented in the case centered around hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. Trump's team sought to dismiss the charges, claiming political motivation, but Judge Juan Merchan rejected this argument, emphasizing the strength of the evidence and Trump's own role in delaying the proceedings. At the federal level, Trump's legal battles have proven equally dramatic. Although two federal cases against him were dismissed following his 2024 election victory, the fallout from earlier indictments continues to ripple through the judiciary and political landscape. His legal team has argued that his actions as president should shield him from prosecution, setting up a contentious debate on executive power.On a broader policy front, Trump's aggressive deregulation efforts have made waves. This week, he instructed agencies to repeal regulations he deemed unlawful, bypassing traditional public notice procedures. The move, rooted in recent Supreme Court rulings like *Loper Bright Enterprises*, has sparked a fiery response from legal advocacy groups, which argue that his actions undermine democratic accountability and marginalize public involvement.Whether in the courtroom or the White House, Trump's legal entanglements and controversial policies show no signs of slowing down, keeping both his supporters and critics on edge.

Trump announces a sweeping tariff regime, then pauses it for 90 days—why? As a tactic to renegotiate trade deals? To reshore manufacturing? Some combination of both? With midterms just over the horizon, the stakes of this gamble to reorient global trade are high. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court lifts District Judge Jeb Boasberg's temporary restraining order on deporting members of the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua—what's next?? Internment camps for U.S. citizens?? This week, the hosts weigh in on the effectiveness of the recent tariffs, recount Justice Sotomayor's ridiculous dissent, and touch on the limp, confused effort by the Left to protest. Plus: media and reading recommendations!

The fate of dozens of Venezuelans deported by the Trump administration to a maximum security prison in El Salvador remains in doubt. So does the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who administration officials admit was removed in error, even as they refuse to return him to the United States. The Supreme Court just issued rulings on these cases, putting a hold on a lower court's order to reverse Abrego Garcia's removal, and allowing the deportations of Venezuelans to resume for now. In that second one, Sonia Sotomayor issued a powerful dissent, and buried in it is an alarming warning. We talked to American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who expertly demystifies these rulings for us—and explains how Sotomayor laid bare the alarming stakes we face at this fraught moment.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The fate of dozens of Venezuelans deported by the Trump administration to a maximum security prison in El Salvador remains in doubt. So does the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who administration officials admit was removed in error, even as they refuse to return him to the United States. The Supreme Court just issued rulings on these cases, putting a hold on a lower court's order to reverse Abrego Garcia's removal, and allowing the deportations of Venezuelans to resume for now. In that second one, Sonia Sotomayor issued a powerful dissent, and buried in it is an alarming warning. We talked to American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who expertly demystifies these rulings for us—and explains how Sotomayor laid bare the alarming stakes we face at this fraught moment. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The fate of dozens of Venezuelans deported by the Trump administration to a maximum security prison in El Salvador remains in doubt. So does the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who administration officials admit was removed in error, even as they refuse to return him to the United States. The Supreme Court just issued rulings on these cases, putting a hold on a lower court's order to reverse Abrego Garcia's removal, and allowing the deportations of Venezuelans to resume for now. In that second one, Sonia Sotomayor issued a powerful dissent, and buried in it is an alarming warning. We talked to American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who expertly demystifies these rulings for us—and explains how Sotomayor laid bare the alarming stakes we face at this fraught moment.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump claimed victory, but there doesn't seem to be much victory in this for either side. Andy McCarthy is here to talk about the immigration Supreme Court case.

Here's a look at what's making Caribbean Headlines:Major oil and gas expansions planned in Trinidad and Tobago Dominican Republic ruled out reopening airspace with HaitiKing Felipe VI of Spain and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be in Dominican RepublicThese and other stories are on today's Pulse of the Caribbean-Caribbean News Round Up  Episode 3 for the Week of March 31.Listen and subscribe to the  Pulse of the Caribbean Caribbean News Round Up for news you need to know. Send news releases and information to news@pulseofthecaribbean.com.

Elie Mystal and Mark Zaid join to discuss the “deeply disturbing” trend of international university students with pro-Palestinian views having their visas revoked and being detained or even deported. Plus, Rep. Jamie Raskin on the Trump Administration playing fast and loose with the justice system. 

This Day in Legal History: Scottsboro Boys ArrestedOn this day in legal history, March 25, 1931, nine Black teenagers were arrested in Paint Rock, Alabama, accused of raping two white women aboard a freight train. The arrests set off one of the most infamous legal sagas of the 20th century, exposing the deep racial injustices of the Jim Crow South. The teens, later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were quickly indicted and tried in Scottsboro, Alabama. Just twelve days after their arrest, an all-white jury sentenced most of them to death in a series of rushed, chaotic trials marked by inadequate legal representation.Public outrage and national attention, particularly from Black communities and civil rights organizations, led to multiple appeals. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to counsel had been violated, setting a precedent that effective legal representation is essential in capital cases. Later, in Norris v. Alabama(1935), the Court found that the systematic exclusion of Black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Despite these victories, the road to justice was long and uneven. Several of the Scottsboro Boys remained imprisoned for years, and none received a full measure of legal vindication during their lifetimes. Their ordeal became a powerful symbol of the racial bias embedded in the American legal system and spurred greater attention to the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The legacy of the case continues to influence debates over due process, racial discrimination, and criminal justice reform.At a U.S. appeals court hearing on March 24, 2025, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett sharply criticized the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan migrants, suggesting they were given fewer rights than Nazis who were removed under the same legal authority during World War II. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used law last applied to intern Axis nationals during WWII—to justify deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without immigration court rulings. The court is reviewing whether a temporary ban issued by Judge James Boasberg on such deportations should remain in place. Government attorneys argued that national security and executive authority over foreign affairs justify bypassing normal legal procedures.Family members and lawyers for deportees contest the gang allegations, saying they are based on flimsy evidence like tattoos. One deported man was a professional soccer coach whose tattoo referred to Real Madrid. Judge Millett questioned whether the deported migrants had any opportunity to dispute the gang labels before removal, calling the process rushed and opaque.The deportations, carried out on March 15, sent over 200 people to El Salvador, where they are being held in a high-security prison under a U.S.-funded deal. The ACLU claims the administration defied Boasberg's court order by speeding up removals to preempt judicial intervention. The government has since invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further flight details. The case is now a flashpoint over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment.Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump, judge says at hearing | ReutersOn March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana's congressional map, which increased the number of Black-majority districts from one to two. The case pits efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act against claims that the new map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race. Louisiana officials defended the map, saying it was drawn to protect Republican incumbents rather than based on racial motives. They argued the redistricting was politically, not racially, driven—particularly to preserve the districts of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.Civil rights groups and Black voters countered that the map was a necessary remedy after a 2022 ruling found the prior version likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. A 2024 lower court ruling blocked the updated map, saying race predominated in its design. The Supreme Court justices appeared divided, with liberal Justice Sotomayor skeptical that race had dominated the redistricting process, and conservative Chief Justice Roberts pointing to the odd shape of the second Black-majority district as potential evidence of racial gerrymandering.Justice Gorsuch challenged whether any consideration of race in map-drawing runs afoul of constitutional protections. The Court had previously allowed the new map to be used for the 2024 elections, but a final ruling is expected by June. The outcome could have broad implications for how states navigate the tension between addressing historic racial discrimination in voting and avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting.US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana electoral map with more Black-majority districts | ReutersThe Justice Department, under President Trump's direction, has launched an “immediate review” of law firms that have challenged his administration in court, wielding Rule 11 as a tool to pursue sanctions for allegedly frivolous litigation. The memo, issued March 21, empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to target lawyers not just for recent cases, but for conduct going back eight years—reviving a rarely enforced mechanism that requires legal filings to be non-frivolous and not made for improper purposes. While legal experts note that courts are typically cautious about imposing Rule 11 sanctions, the administration's move is seen as a political shot across the bow of the legal profession.Trump has already threatened prominent firms with revoked security clearances and canceled federal contracts, but one firm, Paul Weiss, avoided penalties by agreeing to a $40 million pro bono commitment to Trump-aligned causes and an audit of its diversity programs. That deal, far from resolving the issue, may have signaled that capitulation invites more pressure. As anyone who's dealt with a bully could have predicted: surrender doesn't end the harassment—it encourages it. The only way to improve your position is to raise the cost of targeting you, yet many law firm leaders (and institutions of higher education, if we're being fair) seem to have missed that lesson the first time they encountered it.Now, those same leaders face the possibility of serious professional consequences for doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: advocate for clients and challenge government overreach. Trump's order also singles out individuals like Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, whom the memo connects to the long-disputed Steele dossier, despite no formal wrongdoing. Critics warn that the DOJ's probe could evolve into a tool to intimidate or sideline legal opposition to Trump, reshaping the legal landscape by discouraging firms from representing those who stand against the administration.Legal scholars have labeled the move a dangerous politicization of Rule 11, pointing out that it essentially makes Bondi the judge and Trump the executioner. In weaponizing a procedural rule with ambiguous standards and rare enforcement, the administration isn't just threatening lawsuits—it's undermining the adversarial system that keeps government power in check.DOJ Launches 'Immediate Review' of Law Firms After Trump MemoCalifornia's new disclosure law on municipal corporate tax-sharing agreements is a welcome move toward transparency, but it's not enough to stop the ongoing drain of public revenue. For years, corporations have exploited the split in California's sales tax—where 1.25% goes to local jurisdictions—by striking deals with cities that offer kickbacks in exchange for routing sales through their borders. This has created a race to the bottom, with municipalities, especially smaller ones, effectively subsidizing some of the world's richest companies in hopes of boosting their own budgets. These deals don't create new economic activity; they just reshuffle where sales are counted and where tax dollars land.While the new law will finally shine a light on these practices starting in April, disclosure without action won't solve the problem. Cities will still have incentives to offer generous tax rebates, and many will rush to lock in long-term deals before limits are imposed. What we need is immediate legislative action to cap how much of their tax base cities can give away. A ceiling tied to a city's budget or economic profile would prevent reckless giveaways while preserving flexibility for true economic development.We should also require that any shared tax revenue be reinvested in local infrastructure or services, not handed over as corporate windfalls. Waiting for more data only gives cover to continue harmful deals that are already draining school, safety, and infrastructure funding. Policymakers don't need years of reports—they need the courage to stop the bleeding now.Transparency Alone Won't Fix California's Corporate Tax Drain 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

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does an award of the “defendant's profits” under the Lanham Act allow a court to require the defendant to disgorge profits earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates?The case was decided on February 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act limits recovery of profits in trademark infringement cases to those earned by the named defendant, not its separately incorporated affiliates. Justice Elena Kagan authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.The text of the Lanham Act authorizes recovery of the “defendant's profits,” which refers only to profits of parties named in the lawsuit. This interpretation aligns with fundamental corporate law principles that treat separately incorporated organizations as distinct legal entities with separate rights and obligations, even when they share common ownership. While exceptions exist through corporate veil-piercing doctrines, Dewberry Engineers never pursued this legal pathway. Courts may not, as the lower courts here did, disregard corporate separateness and treat a party and its non-party affiliates as “a single corporate entity” when calculating the profit award.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion.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: May Oklahoma carry out the execution of Richard Glossip in light of the prosecutorial misconduct and other errors that affected his conviction and sentencing?The case was decided on February 25, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony violated the Due Process Clause under Napue v Illinois. A conviction that relies on false evidence, knowingly allowed by the prosecution, requires reversal if there is a reasonable likelihood the falsehood affected the jury's judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-2 majority opinion of the Court.The prosecution allowed its key witness, Justin Sneed, to provide false testimony about his mental health and medical treatment. The new evidence showed that Sneed was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium, facts that were withheld from the defense. At trial, Sneed falsely claimed he was never treated by a psychiatrist and received lithium mistakenly. This falsehood was material because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence implicating Glossip, and impeachment of his credibility could have influenced the jury's decision. The prosecution had prior knowledge of Sneed's mental health treatment and still failed to correct the misstatement when it was made to the jury.Correcting this false testimony would likely have changed the jury's assessment of Sneed's reliability. Additionally, the prosecution's violations extended beyond Napue: it suppressed exculpatory evidence, interfered with witness testimony, and allowed destruction of key physical evidence. Given these cumulative errors and their impact on the fairness of the trial, Glossip is entitled to a new trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of the attorney general's confession of error was based on a misapplication of federal law.Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

As I sit here on March 3, 2025, reflecting on the whirlwind of legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump, it's hard to believe how much has unfolded in just the past few months. The nation has been captivated by the unprecedented spectacle of a former president facing multiple criminal charges, even as he returned to the White House for a second term.Just a few weeks ago, on January 10, Trump was sentenced in the New York hush money case. Justice Juan Merchan handed down an unconditional discharge, meaning Trump avoided jail time but still carries the weight of 34 felony convictions. The sentencing came after a dramatic eleventh-hour appeal to the Supreme Court, with Trump's team arguing that the proceedings should be halted due to his status as president-elect. Justice Sonia Sotomayor ultimately allowed the sentencing to proceed.The New York case, however, is far from over. Trump's legal team has vowed to appeal the conviction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States from last year. They argue that evidence related to Trump's official acts as president was improperly admitted during the trial. The case is now headed to the New York Court of Appeals, with the possibility of eventually making its way back to the Supreme Court.Meanwhile, the federal cases against Trump in Washington D.C. and Florida have taken surprising turns. Following Trump's election victory in November, both cases were dismissed. In D.C., Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss on December 6, 2024. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon had already dismissed the classified documents case in July, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed. The Justice Department's appeal of that decision was dropped shortly after the election.The legal drama hasn't been limited to Trump's criminal cases. On February 13, Susan Grundmann, the former chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, filed a lawsuit challenging her abrupt removal by the Trump administration. The case highlights the ongoing tensions between Trump's desire to reshape the government and the protections afforded to independent agency leaders.As we move further into Trump's second term, the legal landscape continues to shift. His administration has already taken aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives with new executive orders, prompting swift legal challenges. A federal court temporarily blocked enforcement of these orders on February 27, setting the stage for yet another legal battle.The coming months promise more twists and turns in the ongoing saga of Trump's legal troubles. As a nation, we find ourselves in uncharted territory, grappling with the implications of a sitting president carrying felony convictions while simultaneously fighting to overturn them. The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power in our government and the very nature of presidential accountability.

 In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a party who obtains a preliminary injunction a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U-S-C § 1988?The case was decided on February 25, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a party that receives a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment on the merits before a case becomes moot is not a "prevailing party" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U-S-C §1988(b). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The term “prevailing party” in §1988(b) refers to a party who obtains enduring judicial relief that conclusively resolves their claim on the merits. Preliminary injunctions do not qualify because they merely preserve the status quo temporarily while predicting likelihood of success—they do not conclusively determine rights. Importantly, a “prevailing party” traditionally means one who "successfully prosecutes the action" or "successfully maintains" their claim "at the end" of proceedings, not one who achieves temporary success at intermediate stages.External events that render a case moot do not transform a preliminary injunction into the kind of judicial success that warrants attorney's fees. For a party to “prevail” under §1988(b), both the change in legal relationship between parties and the permanence of that change must result from judicial order, not from outside circumstances.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Signs Grand Canyon National Park ActOn February 26, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Grand Canyon National Park Act, officially designating the Grand Canyon as a national park. This landmark decision aimed to preserve the canyon's breathtaking landscapes, unique geological formations, and rich biodiversity for future generations. Prior to its national park status, the Grand Canyon had been a federally protected reserve, but conservationists pushed for stronger protections. The designation marked a significant victory for the early environmental movement, ensuring that the canyon would be safeguarded from mining, logging, and other commercial exploitation.The Grand Canyon, carved over millions of years by the Colorado River, is one of the world's most iconic natural wonders. Its layered rock formations offer a window into Earth's geological history, dating back nearly two billion years. Beyond its scientific significance, the canyon holds deep cultural importance for Indigenous tribes, including the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo, who have lived in and around the area for centuries. The national park designation helped protect these cultural and historical sites, though it also led to conflicts over land rights.The creation of Grand Canyon National Park was part of a broader movement in the early 20th century to protect America's natural landscapes. This movement, championed by figures like President Theodore Roosevelt, laid the foundation for the modern National Park System. Today, Grand Canyon National Park attracts millions of visitors annually, serving as a testament to the enduring importance of conservation efforts.President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of security clearances and government contracts for the law firm Covington & Burling due to its legal assistance to special counsel Jack Smith. In a memo signed in the Oval Office, Trump accused law firms of using pro bono work to obstruct the government. The directive specifically targets Peter Koski, a Covington partner, and calls for a review of the firm's federal contracts.  Smith recently disclosed that Covington provided him with $140,000 in pro bono legal services as he faces government scrutiny. Covington stated that it represents Smith in a personal capacity and will continue to defend his interests. Legal experts note that security clearances are crucial for private attorneys handling national security matters.  Trump, who has been indicted in two cases led by Smith, referred to the order as the "Deranged Jack Smith signing" and mocked the prosecutor after signing the memo.Trump Targets Covington Security, Contracts Over Work With SmithThe U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, ruling that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional rights. In a rare win for a capital defendant, two conservative justices joined the court's three liberals to overturn Glossip's conviction. Oklahoma's Republican attorney general had also acknowledged errors in the case, including prosecutors withholding evidence and failing to correct false testimony.  Glossip was convicted for allegedly orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, though the actual killer, Justin Sneed, was the state's key witness. Newly disclosed documents revealed that Sneed had considered recanting, was coached by prosecutors, and lied about his mental health history. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that correcting Sneed's false testimony would have significantly damaged his credibility.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the ruling, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially agreed but wanted the state court to decide if a new trial was warranted. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the case should have been left to Oklahoma courts. Glossip's execution had been blocked nine times before, and his attorney emphasized the ruling as a crucial step toward justice. It remains uncertain whether Oklahoma will retry the case or pursue the death penalty again.Justices Order New Trial in Rare Win for Death Row Inmate (2)A U.S. judge has extended an order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing a sweeping freeze on federal funding, citing concerns that the policy could be reinstated. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that despite the administration's withdrawal of an initial memo pausing grants and loans, statements from White House officials suggested the freeze was still in effect.  The funding pause, announced in January, aimed to review federal financial assistance programs for compliance with Trump's executive orders, including those ending diversity initiatives and pausing climate-related projects. Nonprofits and small business groups sued, arguing the freeze would cause widespread harm.  AliKhan criticized the policy as legally baseless and impractical, saying it would either halt up to $3 trillion in spending overnight or force agencies to review all grants within a day. She called the administration's actions “irrational” and warned of a potential national crisis. The ruling prevents the government from reimposing the freeze under a different name, marking a legal setback for Trump's efforts to reshape federal spending priorities.Trump blocked from imposing sweeping federal funding freeze | ReutersIn my weekly Bloomberg Tax column, I examine Washington State's new data broker tax, a well-intended but ultimately insufficient approach to curbing exploitative data practices. The legislation treats consumer data like a natural resource, imposing a severance tax on its collection. However, this framework fails to address the real issue: long-term data retention and reuse.  A more effective solution would be a retention tax, which would discourage firms from hoarding personal data indefinitely. Under the current bill, companies pay a tiered tax based on the number of residents whose data they collect. While this sounds like a fair approach, it risks consolidating data power in the hands of large platforms that can absorb the tax and continue selling consumer information without restriction. Worse, the tax may encourage firms to store data longer, giving it an artificial market value that promotes hoarding rather than limiting collection.  Unlike oil or minerals, personal data is not depleted upon use—it can be endlessly repackaged and resold. A retention tax would align economic incentives with privacy concerns, forcing firms to justify prolonged data storage and pay accordingly. Without it, Washington's proposal does little to curb long-term privacy risks and may ultimately entrench the very data exploitation it seeks to prevent.Washington's Data Broker Tax Is a Promising but Inadequate Move 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

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we explore the Supreme Court's decision to abstain from ruling on a Trump emergency appeal about firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jessica Levinson and Katie Buehler, Law360's Supreme Court reporter, analyze the nuances of presidential power and the debate over the constitutionality of restricting executive authority. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court Decision on Trump Emergency Appeal: The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision not to review an emergency appeal concerning the firing of Hampton Dellinger from his position as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The court allowed the temporary restraining order, which pauses the firing, to run its course and expire. Legal Arguments and Statute Constitutionality: The legal argument centers on whether President Trump had to provide a reason for Dellinger's firing, as required by federal law. Trump's administration argues that the statute requiring a reason is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to fire at will. This theme explores the larger question of presidential authority and statutory constraints.Significant Supreme Court Cases: Katie Buehler highlights other significant Supreme Court cases beyond the Trump-related decision, including a case involving the Federal Communications Commission's authority and executive power, as well as cases on religious rights such as opting-out of LGBTQ-related education and funding for religious charter schools. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@bykatiebuehler

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Oklahoma to vacate the murder conviction of Richard Glossip, the state's most famous death row inmate, finding that prosecutors violated Glossip's civil rights during his trial more than 20 years ago. “Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion for five justices. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Kentaji Brown and Amy Comey Barrett, who dissented in part. Glossip has spent 26 years on death row, had two trials, nine execution dates and three last meals. Tuesday's ruling came as Oklahoma prepares to execute its first inmate of the year in March, the 16th since the state resumed executions in 2021.On today's podcast, I'm joined by former Republican lawmaker Kevin McDugle. In his time in the Legislature, McDugle advocated for Glossip, as well as for various reforms to Oklahoma's use of the death penalty.This is Listen Frontier, a podcast exploring the investigative journalism of the Frontier and featuring conversations with those on the frontlines of Oklahoma's most important stories. Listen to us Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.To donate to The Frontier and help support our efforts to grow investigative journalism in Oklahoma, click here.

This interview includes Jeffrey Herlihy-Mera, Professor of Humanities, Universidad de Puerto Rico-Mayagüez (UPR-M); Annette Martínez-Iñesta, Instructor of Italian, UPR-M; and Baruch Vergara, Artist and Professor of Plastic Arts, UPR-M. This episode has been sponsored by the Mellon Foundation, the Department of Humanities at the UPR-M, and the Instituto Nuevos Horizontes.  This is the second podcast with Ilan Stavans about Latino USA; the first, in Spanish, is available on the New Books Network en español. About the book: In Latino USA, Latin American and Latino scholar Ilan Stavans captures the joys, nuances, and multiple dimensions of Latino culture within the context of the English language. Combining the solemnity of so-called serious literature and history with the inherently theatrical and humorous form of comics, this cartoon history of Latinos includes Columbus, the Alamo, Desi Arnaz, West Side Story, Castro, Guevara, the Bay of Pigs, Neruda, the Mariel boatlift, Selena, Sonia Sotomayor, and much more. To embrace the sweep of Hispanic civilization and its riot of types, archetypes, and stereotypes, Stavans deploys a series of "cliché figurines" as narrators, including a toucan (displayed regularly in books by García Márquez, Allende, and others), the beloved Latino comedian Cantinflas, a masked wrestler, and Captain America. Their multiple, at times contradictory voices provide unique perspectives on Latino history, together creating a carnivalesque epic, democratic and impartial. Updated to bring the book up to the present moment, this twenty-fifth anniversary edition includes thirty new pages of Latino history, from Hamilton to George Santos. Latino USA, like the history it so entertainingly relates, is a treasure trove of irreverence, wit, subversion, anarchy, politics, humanism, and celebration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latino-studies

This interview includes Jeffrey Herlihy-Mera, Professor of Humanities, Universidad de Puerto Rico-Mayagüez (UPR-M); Annette Martínez-Iñesta, Instructor of Italian, UPR-M; and Baruch Vergara, Artist and Professor of Plastic Arts, UPR-M. This episode has been sponsored by the Mellon Foundation, the Department of Humanities at the UPR-M, and the Instituto Nuevos Horizontes.  This is the second podcast with Ilan Stavans about Latino USA; the first, in Spanish, is available on the New Books Network en español. About the book: In Latino USA, Latin American and Latino scholar Ilan Stavans captures the joys, nuances, and multiple dimensions of Latino culture within the context of the English language. Combining the solemnity of so-called serious literature and history with the inherently theatrical and humorous form of comics, this cartoon history of Latinos includes Columbus, the Alamo, Desi Arnaz, West Side Story, Castro, Guevara, the Bay of Pigs, Neruda, the Mariel boatlift, Selena, Sonia Sotomayor, and much more. To embrace the sweep of Hispanic civilization and its riot of types, archetypes, and stereotypes, Stavans deploys a series of "cliché figurines" as narrators, including a toucan (displayed regularly in books by García Márquez, Allende, and others), the beloved Latino comedian Cantinflas, a masked wrestler, and Captain America. Their multiple, at times contradictory voices provide unique perspectives on Latino history, together creating a carnivalesque epic, democratic and impartial. Updated to bring the book up to the present moment, this twenty-fifth anniversary edition includes thirty new pages of Latino history, from Hamilton to George Santos. Latino USA, like the history it so entertainingly relates, is a treasure trove of irreverence, wit, subversion, anarchy, politics, humanism, and celebration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This interview includes Jeffrey Herlihy-Mera, Professor of Humanities, Universidad de Puerto Rico-Mayagüez (UPR-M); Annette Martínez-Iñesta, Instructor of Italian, UPR-M; and Baruch Vergara, Artist and Professor of Plastic Arts, UPR-M. This episode has been sponsored by the Mellon Foundation, the Department of Humanities at the UPR-M, and the Instituto Nuevos Horizontes.  This is the second podcast with Ilan Stavans about Latino USA; the first, in Spanish, is available on the New Books Network en español. About the book: In Latino USA, Latin American and Latino scholar Ilan Stavans captures the joys, nuances, and multiple dimensions of Latino culture within the context of the English language. Combining the solemnity of so-called serious literature and history with the inherently theatrical and humorous form of comics, this cartoon history of Latinos includes Columbus, the Alamo, Desi Arnaz, West Side Story, Castro, Guevara, the Bay of Pigs, Neruda, the Mariel boatlift, Selena, Sonia Sotomayor, and much more. To embrace the sweep of Hispanic civilization and its riot of types, archetypes, and stereotypes, Stavans deploys a series of "cliché figurines" as narrators, including a toucan (displayed regularly in books by García Márquez, Allende, and others), the beloved Latino comedian Cantinflas, a masked wrestler, and Captain America. Their multiple, at times contradictory voices provide unique perspectives on Latino history, together creating a carnivalesque epic, democratic and impartial. Updated to bring the book up to the present moment, this twenty-fifth anniversary edition includes thirty new pages of Latino history, from Hamilton to George Santos. Latino USA, like the history it so entertainingly relates, is a treasure trove of irreverence, wit, subversion, anarchy, politics, humanism, and celebration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Here's a narrative script on the recent court trials involving Donald Trump:Donald Trump, the newly elected President of the United States, has been at the center of several high-profile court trials. Just a few weeks ago, on January 10, 2025, Trump was sentenced in a New York trial court to an unconditional discharge for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. These crimes stemmed from his efforts to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election by hiding reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.The trial, which began on April 15, 2024, saw a Manhattan jury find Trump guilty on May 30, 2024. Despite the conviction, Justice Juan Merchan decided not to impose any serious punishment, opting instead for an unconditional discharge. This decision has been seen as symbolically significant, marking Trump as the first criminal elected to the presidency.However, Trump's legal battles are far from over. Before his sentencing, Trump had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in his hush money case, arguing that the criminal proceedings should be put on hold while his claims of presidential immunity are addressed. Trump cited the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, which could potentially reshape the constitutional framework for constraining the behavior of U.S. presidents.In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump argued that forcing him to prepare for a criminal sentencing while preparing to lead the country as President imposed an intolerable and unconstitutional burden on him. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from New York, directed prosecutors to respond to Trump's request, but ultimately, the sentencing proceeded as scheduled.Trump's legal entanglements also include dismissed federal cases in the Southern District of Florida and Washington, D.C. In Florida, a federal grand jury indicted Trump and his aide Waltine Nauta on charges including willfully retaining national defense information and obstruction of justice. However, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed and funded. The Justice Department later dismissed the appeal against Trump and his co-defendants.As Trump navigates these complex legal landscapes, his presidency remains under scrutiny. The question on everyone's mind is how long he can maintain his position as the first criminal president of the United States. Only time will tell if Trump's legal battles will ultimately lead to his exoneration or further entanglements.

Author and retired Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell shares her thoughts about Elon Musk's efforts to gain access to sensitive and personal data, and she opines on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's recent comments about presidential power and the role of the Supreme CourtBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

The Supreme Court is Corrupt, Congress is a Rubber Stamp, & the President is Lawless—What Happens Next? Welcome to James Madison's nightmare: The very definition of Tyranny. ‘Our Democracy Is Under Siege' Former Treasury Secretaries Write Scathing NY Times Op-Ed Warning Against DOGE's ‘Threat to America' Emboldened racists are now impersonating ICE throughout America...Look out! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

George Conway joins to discuss New York Mayor Eric Adams' capitulation to the Trump Administration after the DOJ moved to dismiss the case against him. Plus, the Trump Administration works overtime to discredit America's legal system after multiple judges issued rulings against the administration's radical moves.

0:00 Ron Paul is right about Gaza, Trump should not have US take over!-Robby Soave 10:04 Constitutional crisis? MSNBC analyst says not so fast; Sotomayor issues warning 21:28 Sam Altman, Elon Musk fued; DOGE head offers $97 billion to buy open A-I 29:24 Iran's threat to kill Trump was far more serious than public thought: Alex Isenstadt Interview 38:50 Democrat Rep. removes her reproductive organs, addresses backlash: Laurie Pohutsky interview 47:08 PBS axes DEI office after allegedly trying to sneak around Trump's executive order: Interview 54:36 Wow: Morning Joe praises Elon Musk after Oval office presser on DOGE! 1:05:13 Trump stopping Penny production; Obama supported initiative. Coin org fights Back Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1114 - “We are now faced, my friends, with the fact that tomorrow is today.” --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 4, 1967) We begin the second Trump administration exactly where we intend to remain for the next four years: in dissent.  Today's Inauguration Day counter-programming features two of the most powerful dissenters in modern American history: Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We begin with commentary on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's defiantly inspiring July 1, 2024 dissent as read from the bench in the Supreme Court's immunity decision, and conclude with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s powerful call for a “revolution of values” to end “power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”  Audio of Supreme Court decision announcements for July 1, 2024 (Sotomayor dissent begins as 42:00) Full text of Trump v. US (7/1/2024)(including Roberts majority, Coney Barrett concurrence, and Sotomayor and Jackson dissents) “Hear Me Roar: What Provokes Supreme Court Justices to Dissent from the Bench?” Timothy R. Johnson et al, Minnesota Law Review (2010) Martin Luther King, Jr. “Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence” (April 4, 1967) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

On Thursday's Mark Levin's Show, WMAL's Larry O'Connor fills in for Mark tonight, and he discusses how John Thune's office should bend over backwards to help President Trump to lock in the best team from his picks as possible. Trump's stunning win is a perfect example of the love that this country has for him and that he is needed. In addition, asylum seekers are a huge problem as the radical left and RINO's have done everything they can to allow asylum them to come into the country without proper vetting. Also, Joni Ernst does not agree with Pete Hegseth being the Secretary Of Defense. She claims that he does not have the experience to be the Secretary Of Defense and considers him to be a bad choice due to his strong support for avoiding women to be in the Military. Lastly, Justice Sonia Sotomayor supports the fact that young children's genders are being scientifically engineered to be the sex they claim to be. She supports pre-pubescent boys and girls in taking chemical hormones that reverse their natural gender development that they were born with. It is insane that she is pushing for this as a Judge who can make critical decisions about this issue and it is outrageous that she is in the position to pass laws on this. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What is the purpose of the American government? Glenn outlines the mission statement to protect our inalienable rights, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Glenn also lays out what America is fighting against and the appropriate response to the fight. Glenn uses the story of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was shot and killed while leaving a hotel early yesterday morning, as a warning of what's to come. Glenn looks at all the available information that points to this killing being a planned execution. Glenn and Stu call out Taylor Lorenz for celebrating the death of the United Healthcare CEO. Glenn shares his story of redemption and how he got past the negativity surrounding him. Axios accused Trump of sabotaging Biden's final days with his aggressive transition, but Glenn argues it's just promises being kept. Norwegian journalist Rebecca Mistereggen joins to discuss the current mass immigration crisis and the Islamization of Norway. Glenn and Stu discuss the Supreme Court's recent hearing on Tennessee's bill that bans the "transgender" mutilation of children and why Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was definitely NOT the Dobbs leaker. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, we're discussing the Supreme Court hearing in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case over Tennessee SB1 restricting puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for minors for reasons attributed to gender "transition." We give you all the information you need about the bill itself and yesterday's oral arguments before the Court. Justice Sotomayor hilariously compared prescribing children puberty blockers to simply taking aspirin, while Justice Alito thankfully pushed back against the arguments from the ACLU's "transgender" lawyer. Also, as we head into the Christmas season, a new holiday film titled "Dear Santa" is coming to a theater near you starring Jack Black as ... Satan? Buy Allie's new book, "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": https://a.co/d/4COtBxy --- Timecodes: (06:15) US v. Skrmetti overview (43:58) ACLU attorney “Chase” Strangio (50:17) “Dear Santa” movie  ---   Today's Sponsors: EveryLife — The only premium baby brand that is unapologetically pro-life. EveryLife offers high-performing, supremely soft diapers and wipes that protect and celebrate every precious life. Head to EveryLife.com and use promo code ALLIE10 to get 10% of your first order today! America's Christian Credit Union — Switch to America's Christian Credit Union today for faith-aligned banking with exceptional rates and nationwide access. ACCU will donate a box of EveryLife diapers to a Christian pregnancy resource center for every new member who opens a checking account before January 31st, and pay a $100 bonus to a new account when you sign up with code "ALLIE". Visit https://www.americaschristiancu.com/allie to get started! Patriot Mobile — go to PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE or call 972-PATRIOT and use promo code 'ALLIE' for a free month of service! Jase Medical — Go to Jase.com and enter code “ALLIE” at checkout for a discount on your order. My Patriot Supply — Prepare yourself for anything with long-term emergency food storage. Get your new, lower-price Emergency Food Kit at PrepareWithAllie.com. Order your 3-Month Emergency Food Kit. ---   Relevant Episodes: Ep 1109 | Whistleblower Shares The Gruesome Truth About Trans 'Care' | Guests: Jamie Reed & Vernadette Broyles https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1109-whistleblower-shares-the-gruesome-truth-about/id1359249098?i=1000679255322 Ep 1029 | Whistleblower Nurse Uncovers “Trans Kid” Medicaid Fraud | Guest: Vanessa Sivadge https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1029-whistleblower-nurse-uncovers-trans-kid-medicaid/id1359249098?i=1000660952943 Ep 927 | Is Tumblr Making Kids Trans? | Guest: Daisy Strongin (Part One) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-927-is-tumblr-making-kids-trans-guest-daisy-strongin/id1359249098?i=1000640465566 Ep 928 | Losing ‘Gender Identity' & Finding My Faith | Guest: Daisy Strongin (Part Two) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-928-from-transition-to-conversion-guest-daisy-strongin/id1359249098?i=1000640577375 Ep 896 | From 'Trans Man' to Transformed by Christ | Guest: Laura Perry Smalts (Part One) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-896-from-trans-man-to-transformed-by-christ-guest/id1359249098?i=1000632613519 Ep 897 | A Detransitioner on the Lie of Trans ‘Joy' | Guest: Laura Perry Smalts (Part Two) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-897-a-detransitioner-on-the-lie-of-trans/id1359249098?i=1000632747460 Ep 1020 | Botched: The Brutality of Trans Mastectomies | Guest: Soren Aldaco https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1020-botched-the-brutality-of-trans/id1359249098?i=1000659311855 ---   Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices