Podcasts about subpoenas

In this episode, Jim Chapman breaks down the updates that have occurred over the past few days regarding the investigation into the death of Nolan Wells. Including a new arrest for a bomb threat made against a sitting judge, and the stepmother of Warren Hudson. A new Give-send-go account that has raised nearly 100k in support of the friends of Nolan Wells. A Press Conference held by the family of Nolan Wells “updating the public”, a 50k reward for information offered up by the family of Warren Hudson and other breaking news on the case! On July 4, 2026, Nolan Wells, an 18-year-old Ocean Springs, Mississippi native and incoming freshman football player at Southwest Mississippi Community College, joined a group of friends for a boat trip to Horn Island, a wilderness barrier island off the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Thousands of people were on the island that day. According to his friends, the boat began taking on water that afternoon. They say Nolan chose to stay behind talking to a young woman while they returned to the mainland. His phone made it back. He did not.Timestamps:02:56 Nolan Wells Family Press Conference 06:35 Judge Cole Speaks Out14:55 Death Threats and Arrest18:42 Bart Edmondson Defended25:51 Subpoenas and Threats28:13 Ben Hudson Blasts Crump31:35 Fake Toxicology Report32:40 Reward for Answers36:41 Friends Fight BackFor commercial free early releases, bonus episodes and more! https://www.patreon.com/exposedpodcastfilesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.

Bart Edmiston — one of the friends who was on Horn Island with Nolan Wells on July 4 — has retained attorney Russ Latino and is preparing defamation lawsuits against the people who accused him online of killing Nolan. His lawyer says Bart already provided his boat, GPS data, and phone to investigators. He's cooperated fully. And he just received a credible death threat because of what his attorney calls "wholly fabricated" claims.Filing a defamation suit opens the door to the one thing fabricated claims can't survive: discovery. Depositions under oath. Subpoenas that pull every text and every GPS coordinate into a courtroom. Nobody volunteers for that process if they have something to hide.Ben Crump filed subpoenas to Snapchat, TikTok, WhatsApp, Meta, and Life360 — requesting login histories, IP addresses, password resets, GPS data, and message records. Both sides agreed to a mutual cell phone inspection. The data comes back in twenty-one days. When it does, the Snapchat question gets an answer based on evidence, not speculation.The internet manufactured an entire case file out of a debunked pool photo, an altered audio recording, and AI-generated fakes of Nolan's mother. Every viral accusation made the investigation harder, not easier. And the kids at the center of it — the friends Nolan grew up with, played football with, went to that island with — are carrying death threats for something nobody has proven they did.End LinksJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDisclaimerThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.Hashtags#NolanWells #BartEdmiston #HiddenKillers #HornIsland #OceanSprings #Mississippi #TrueCrime #BenCrump #JusticeForNolan #Defamation

Nolan Wells' friend Bart Edmiston is going on offense. He's retained a lawyer and announced plans to sue the people who spread what his attorney calls "wholly fabricated" claims that he killed Nolan on Horn Island. Bart already gave investigators access to his boat, his GPS, and his phone. Full cooperation. The day before the announcement, he received a credible death threat reported to the FBI.A defamation suit doesn't protect you if you're guilty — it exposes you. Discovery puts every message, every location coordinate, every second of your day under oath. Bart Edmiston is inviting exactly the process that would destroy him if the accusations were true.The manufactured evidence trail keeps falling apart. Rolling Stone debunked the viral pool photo through image metadata — it was taken June 27, a full week before Nolan disappeared. A forensic expert found TMZ's "enhanced" Sea Tow audio is twenty seconds longer than the original with a different digital fingerprint. AI deepfakes of Christine Wonsley have been circulating while she grieves. None of it brought answers. All of it made the real investigation harder.Subpoenas to five major platforms are filed. A mutual phone inspection is agreed to. Both sides are asking for the same thing — let a courtroom sort it out. And the people screaming murder from behind a phone screen should be hoping those depositions happen, because the evidence will tell the truth either way.End LinksJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDisclaimerThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.Hashtags#NolanWells #BartEdmiston #HiddenKillersLive #HornIsland #OceanSprings #Mississippi #TrueCrime #BenCrump #JusticeForNolan #Defamation

It's Wednesday, July 29. Here are today's top stories around Central Indiana. Want to go deeper on the stories you hear on WFYI News Now? Visit wfyi.org and follow us on social media to get local news every day. WFYI News Now is hosted by Barb Anguiano and produced by Zach Bundy. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Dutchess commissioners refuse audit The Dutchess County comptroller and its Board of Elections may need a judge to resolve a dispute over whether auditors can review records related to how the board pays election workers. Dan Aymar-Blair, a Democrat who won reelection as comptroller in 2025, said in a news release on Monday (July 27) that he had subpoenaed the two elections commissioners, Erik Haight and Lisa Jessup, and other BOE employees because they have refused to provide records and allow interviews. The subpoena, Aymar-Blair said, was the "last resort" in a battle that began April 24 when the BOE was notified that the comptroller was auditing its payroll process for election workers. The agency objected to the audit as "seeking operational information," which it claimed exceeds the comptroller's authority, he said. "It is not the preference of the Comptroller's Office to obtain audit materials under threat of subpoena," said Aymar-Blair, who lives in Beacon and said the subpoena may be the first ever issued by the office. That threat is unnecessary and illegal, according to a statement issued Wednesday by Haight and Jessup, who were appointed to their positions by the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Haight said that the board is relying on "common sense" and advice from the state Board of Elections in determining that it is improper for an elected official to "dictate" policies and procedures of a board "mandated to administer the very election that puts him in office." In addition, Jessup said the Comptroller's Office already has BOE payroll records because it must review and approve payments to election workers. By issuing a news release, Jessup said, Aymar-Blair "is seeking to discredit the Board of Elections" when there are "almost daily assaults on the credibility of our elections coming out of the Oval Office." Both the Internal Revenue Service and the state board have audited the BOE's books, said Haight. The comptroller, by contrast, cannot "conduct a performance review under the guise of a financial audit," said Haight. "That responsibility rests solely with the state board." According to the Dutchess County charter, the comptroller's duties include auditing the accounts "of all units" of county government. Those audits "offer recommendations for making government financial operations more efficient, a high priority for county taxpayers," said Aymar-Blair. Previous audits of the BOE took place in 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2020, he said.

Manhattan prosecutors withdrew subpoenas issued to New York Times reporters that compelled them to reveal their sources for leaks about President Trump's Qatari jet. Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance are joined by their friend and former DOJ colleague Mimi Rocah to discuss. This is an excerpt from the conversation. In the full episode, they cover: – Representative Jim Jordan's criminal referral of former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department over alleged false statements; and – Todd Blanche's upcoming Senate confirmation vote for his nomination for attorney general. Not an Insider? Now more than ever, it's critical to stay tuned. To join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times, become an Insider today. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Head to staytuned.substack.com. Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mary and Andrew begin this week by addressing the Department of Justice dropping the subpoenas they ordered against New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns regarding President Trump's new Qatari-government-gifted Air Force One jet, noting that the attempt to subpoena the writers speaks to a failed effort of “chilling and intimidating” other reporters. But still, there were even more subpoenas: last week, the DOJ filed subpoenas for 14 major law firms as part of an ongoing lawsuit between the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Executive Office of the President, which Mary and Andrew believe is an effort by the government to try and “get the law firms to pressure the ABA to drop this lawsuit.” They also touch on an update to journalist Katie Phang's lawsuit against the federal government over Epstein files redactions and address Jack Smith's criminal referral by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan. Plus, two immigration-related cases: a judge's decision to throw out a DOJ lawsuit challenging Minnesota immigration laws and an appeal court's decision to reverse a lower court decision releasing Pro-Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi. A Note to Listeners: As the 2026 midterm elections heat up, MS NOW is headed to the Lone Star State. Join more than a dozen of your favorite hosts - including Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jen Psaki, Michael Steele, Ali Velshi and more - in Arlington, Texas on September 26 for a day of community and conversation about the issues that matter most to you. Get your tickets at ms.now/together. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Why an L.A. County Sheriff oversight commission has been struggling to use its subpoena power years after voters granted it that tool. The American Red Cross is urging donors to help out with a blood shortage. And a few lucky nonprofits will get free tickets to the LA 2028 Olympics. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comSupport the show: https://laist.com

The New York Times has clobbered Trump and Todd Blanche and their dirty DOJ officials in court, forcing them to withdraw their lawless and abusive subpoenas for New York Times reporters AND THIER FAMILY MEMBERS! This kind of abuse of prosecutorial power is very embarrassing for Trump, for Blanche, for the Department of Justice, and for the American people.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The New York Times has clobbered Trump and Todd Blanche and their dirty DOJ officials in court, forcing them to withdraw their lawless and abusive subpoenas for New York Times reporters AND THIER FAMILY MEMBERS! This kind of abuse of prosecutorial power is very embarrassing for Trump, for Blanche, for the Department of Justice, and for the American people.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Newly unsealed court filings reveal that the Trump-era Department of Justice targeted journalists with subpoenas over sensitive leaks.When The New York Times reported on credible security concerns that forced a plane switch during overseas travel, the DOJ initiated federal leak investigations—even extending subpoenas toward reporters and their families. However, major constitutional concerns raised by a federal judge ultimately forced the Justice Department to back down and withdraw the requests.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss the NYT's victory over the DOJ's attempt to subpoena its reporters to testify about their national security reporting and the effects government actions can have on press freedom and democracy. Then, the #Sisters review the legal allegations Jim Jordan has levied against Jack Smith, the political motivations involved, and the role of the Speech or Debate Clause.  They also explore the legal battle over the proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Bros., why state attorneys general are challenging it, and its implications for the entertainment industry and consumers.Remember to send in audio questions to SistersInLaw@politicon.com for the #Sisters to answer on their new companion podcast, SistersInLaw Sidebar!  It airs Wednesdays wherever you normally get your podcasts!Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt, Mini Tote, and other #SistersInLaw gear at politicon.com/merch! Additional #SistersInLaw ProjectsCheck out Jill's Politicon YouTube Show: Just The FactsCheck out Kim's Newsletter: The GavelJoyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available, and for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here. Barb is going on a book tour!  You can also order Barb's new book, The Fix. Her first book, Attack From Within, is now in paperback. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on BlueskyGet your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merchWEBSITE & TRANSCRIPTEmail: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcastGet text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon. Mentioned By The #SistersOrder Barb's new book, The Fix, and get tickets for her book tour!From Barb- Jack Smith Shouldn't Be Part of Trump's Revenge TourSupport This Week's SponsorsFlamingo:Our listeners get the Flamingo Starter Set for just $7 at https://www.shopflamingo.com/SISTERSLifepro:Recover smarter with the Lifepro. Get $20 OFF the Waver Vibration Plate and Free Shipping atLifeprofitness.com with code SISTERS at checkout.OneSkin:Get 15% off OneSkin with the code SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/SISTERS #oneskinpodTumble: Machine Washable Rugs, Made Better. For a limited time only, our listeners get 10% off + free shipping at tumbleliving.com/SISTERS #Tumble #adASPCA:To explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com/sistersThe ASPCA® is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business ofinsurance. For terms and conditions, visit: https://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/more-info/state-documents-and-sample-policies/. Products are underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company (NAIC #26581), or United States Fire Insurance Company (NAIC #21113) and distributed by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd.Get More From The #SistersInLawJoyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | Civil Discourse Substack | MSNBC | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable”Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTubeKimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design PodcastBarb McQuade: barbaramcquade.com | Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America | The Fix

TARIFFS, SUBPOENAS AND THE WAR

TARIFFS, SUBPOENAS AND THE WAR

July 23, 2026, 6pm: President Trump's DOJ said it will withdraw the subpoenas it issued to reporters who reported on security concerns related to the new Qatari-donated Air Force One. Melissa Murray reports and is joined by The New York Times' Molly Jong-Fast and MS NOW's Lisa Rubin. Plus, Trump faces new backlash as the Iran war spirals, the economy sputters and the midterms loom. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The federal government says it will drop its subpoenas compelling New York Times reporters to testify about anonymous sources in a case that involved President Donald Trump's claims about a Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Howie Kurtz on the DOJ withdrawing subpoenas issued to New York Times reporters, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said to be 'ruffling feathers' in the administration, and a Secret Service agent on JD Vance's detail being investigated for allegedly leaking operational security information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Subpoena

Ahead of Friday night's rescheduled White House Correspondents' Dinner, NPR senior political correspondent Tamara Keith and media correspondent David Folkenflik discuss Trump's ever-shifting relationship with the press.Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

VLOG July 24 Subpoenas shamed and withdrawn: https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-subpoenas-about-reporting-on 1989 NH GOP gov nominee Jay Lucas pleads guilty https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/fraud-plea-and-plan-jay-lucas-pleads Unsealing in IN, CA - and PA? First Brand's Edward James gets debanked? At UN #NextSG debate bans Press, unimpressive

This Day in Legal History: The Scottsboro CaseOn July 24, 1937, the state of Alabama dropped all charges against four of the nine young Black men known to history as the Scottsboro Boys—a small, belated measure of relief in one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in American legal history, and a case that helped reshape constitutional criminal procedure. The nine, ranging in age from approximately 13 to 20, had been arrested after riding a freight train through Alabama in 1931 and falsely accused of raping two white women. Within two weeks, in a series of rushed trials before all-white juries, eight of them had been convicted and sentenced to death; the trial of the youngest, Roy Wright, ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree on whether to impose death or life imprisonment.The extraordinary speed and unfairness of those proceedings produced two landmark Supreme Court decisions that still shape the rights of criminal defendants. In Powell v. Alabama in 1932, the Court held that the defendants had been denied due process because they had not received the timely and meaningful assistance of counsel needed to prepare their defense. The Court's holding was formally limited to capital cases involving indigent defendants incapable of adequately defending themselves, but it became a foundational step toward the broader right to appointed counsel later recognized in Gideon v. Wainwright. Then, in Norris v. Alabama in 1935, the Court overturned Clarence Norris's conviction because Alabama had systematically excluded qualified Black citizens from its jury rolls. Building on earlier equal-protection precedents, the Court made clear that a state could not accomplish through discriminatory administration what the Constitution prohibited it from doing expressly.The Scottsboro cases dragged on for years through retrials, reconvictions despite one accuser's recantation, appeals, and slow, partial releases. On July 24, 1937, Alabama dropped all charges against Willie Roberson, Olen Montgomery, Eugene Williams, and Roy Wright. Prosecutors expressly concluded that Roberson and Montgomery were not guilty; Williams and Wright were released principally because of their youth and the six years they had already spent imprisoned. The state continued prosecuting or imprisoning the remaining defendants.The significance of the Scottsboro saga is twofold: it exposed nationally how the Jim Crow justice system operated against Black defendants, and it forced the Supreme Court to give practical constitutional force to protections—meaningful representation by counsel and freedom from racially discriminatory jury selection—that we now consider basic. It is a reminder that some of the most important rights in American law were secured through the suffering of people who were themselves never fully given justice.Thomas Goldstein, one of the most prominent Supreme Court advocates of his generation and a co-founder of the widely read SCOTUSblog, is being sentenced today after a jury convicted him of tax evasion and mortgage fraud. Goldstein argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court and built a celebrated appellate practice—but prosecutors showed the jury a hidden second life as an ultra-high-stakes poker player, in games running into the tens of millions of dollars. The jury found him guilty on 12 of 16 counts, including tax evasion, assisting in the preparation of false returns, willfully failing to pay taxes on time, and lying to mortgage lenders. The conduct is a case study in exactly the kind of sophisticated evasion I wrote about in Forbes this week: prosecutors said Goldstein concealed millions in poker winnings and losses, diverted his law firm's legal fees into personal accounts to cover gambling debts, and directed people to pay his creditors so the money never showed up as his income. That's not a wage earner whose taxes are withheld automatically—it's precisely the complex, hard-to-trace arrangement that takes real investigative resources to unwind. The Justice Department has asked for eight years in prison. The significance is a pointed reminder that the tax laws reach even the elite of the legal profession—and that when the government does devote the resources to untangle a sophisticated scheme, the accountability can be severe. A man who spent his career at the pinnacle of the legal system now faces the system's full weight.Star US Supreme Court lawyer Goldstein to be sentenced for tax crimes | ReutersThe Justice Department has dropped its subpoenas of New York Times journalists over their reporting on the Qatari-donated Air Force One—a striking retreat that came after a federal judge tore into nearly every aspect of the government's approach. We've been following this one: the subpoenas were issued July 10, days after the Times published its stories, seeking grand jury testimony and phone records to unmask the reporters' sources. At Thursday's hearing, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian pressed the government hard. He criticized prosecutors for hastily issuing subpoenas that the DOJ's own lawyers admitted were riddled with “inadvertent errors,” and he chided them for asking another judge to gag phone companies from telling the journalists their records had been subpoenaed—days after the department had already publicly confirmed the subpoenas existed. Faced with that skepticism, the government agreed to withdraw them. A Times lawyer called it “a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for the rule of law.” The significance is worth stating precisely. This wasn't a sweeping constitutional ruling establishing a reporter's privilege—the DOJ retreated before the judge had to decide the hard First Amendment question. But it's a concrete example of judicial scrutiny working as a check: when a court forced the government to justify subpoenas aimed at the press, the case collapsed under its own sloppiness and overreach. After a month of friction between the administration and the media, the press got a clear win.US judge to weigh New York Times subpoenas over Trump plane reporting | ReutersAnd finally, the pause on Paramount Skydance's roughly $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery has been extended—a federal judge has now frozen the deal through August 17. When we covered this earlier in the week, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín had issued a short 14-day restraining order at the request of a dozen state attorneys general; now that freeze runs deeper into August, buying the court time to weigh the states' request to block the merger outright. The states' antitrust theory has sharpened. They argue the combination would lessen competition in three specific markets: wide-release theatrical film distribution, top-grossing theatrical distribution, and basic cable licensing—harming movie theaters, cable distributors, and ultimately audiences. Remember the framework: antitrust law lets courts halt mergers that would concentrate too much market power, and a pause like this preserves the status quo so the deal can't close before a judge decides whether it's lawful. The significance is that time is itself a weapon in merger fights. Every week a deal sits frozen adds cost, uncertainty, and risk for the companies, and it gives regulators and challengers leverage. Here it's state attorneys general—not federal antitrust enforcers—driving the challenge, and they've now kept one of the largest media mergers in history on ice for the better part of a month, with the decisive rulings still to come.Paramount-Warner Bros. deal paused through August 17, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

President Trump weighs in on the chances of renewed peace talks with Iran amid escalating strikes. The Justice Department is dropping subpoenas against three New York Times reporters – we have details. The FDA is reviewing certain rules around controversial peptides – we'll break down today's vote. The man who shot and killed a Minnesota lawmaker has been sentenced. Plus, how the affordability crisis is affecting Amazon and gig economy workers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AP correspondent Michael Sisak reports from New York, where the Trump administration has withdrawn subpoenas against three New York Times reporters.

LOG July 23 After subpoena for reporting on Qatar-gifted jet as AF1 is withdrawn after argument exposing what Judge Subramanian called "hiccups to say the least," this stand-up. Judge Subramanian has Inner City Press FOIA case against DOJ https://courtlistener.com/docket/73400542/1/lee-v-united-states-department-of-justice-antitrust-division/Today'shearing live coverage:X https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2080353396679193063Threads https://www.threads.com/@innercitypressinsta/post/DbJRERdFrn0Blueskyhttps://bsky.app/profile/innercitypress.bsky.social/post/3mrdgfkacmc2u

This Day in Legal History: Congress Shrinks the Supreme CourtOn July 23, 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, and in doing so did something that sounds almost unimaginable today: it shrank the Supreme Court. The Act provided that the Court would gradually contract from ten justices down to seven, as sitting justices died or retired and their seats simply went unfilled. Yesterday we talked about Franklin Roosevelt's failed attempt to enlarge the Court to overpower it; today's anniversary is the mirror image—Congress reducing the Court's size for pointedly political reasons.The politics were about President Andrew Johnson. Johnson, who had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, was locked in a bitter struggle with the Radical Republicans in Congress over Reconstruction. Congress did not trust him, and one thing it was determined to deny him was the power to shape the Supreme Court. By legislating that upcoming vacancies would go unfilled until the Court shrank to seven, Congress effectively stripped Johnson of any Supreme Court appointments. It was court-unpacking as a weapon of inter-branch warfare—using Congress's control over the Court's size not to change its rulings directly, but to lock a distrusted president out of influencing it.The size of the Supreme Court has never been fixed by the Constitution—it's set by statute, and it has ranged from six at the founding up to ten and back down over the country's first century. After Johnson left office, Congress promptly passed the Judiciary Act of 1869 and settled the number at nine, where it has remained ever since. The significance of July 23, 1866 is that it's the clearest historical example of Congress manipulating the Court's very size for immediate political advantage—and, paired with the 1937 court-packing fight, it bookends the story of how the number nine came to feel sacrosanct even though it never actually was. The Court's independence, it turns out, has always rested partly on a political truce about not touching its structure.A Manhattan federal judge is set to weigh today whether to throw out the Justice Department's subpoenas to New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns about President Trump flying on a Qatari-donated Air Force One. This is the next chapter of a story we covered when the subpoenas first landed: they were issued July 10 by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, and U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian has paused their enforcement pending this afternoon's hearing. The two sides want very different things. Prosecutors have asked the judge merely to put the subpoenas on hold for a couple of weeks, saying the investigation's next steps could shape his decision; the Times wants them quashed outright, arguing they're designed to harass and intimidate journalists in violation of the First Amendment. The legal backdrop is genuinely unsettled. There is no absolute reporter's privilege under federal law—prosecutors correctly note the First Amendment doesn't categorically excuse reporters from testifying in criminal investigations—but courts have long been wary of subpoenas that function as fishing expeditions to unmask sources. The significance is that this hearing is a concrete test of where that line falls, and it lands amid a broader pattern we've tracked all month of friction between the administration and the press. However Judge Subramanian rules, it will be an early data point on how much protection newsgathering gets when the government wants to know who talked.US judge to weigh New York Times subpoenas over Trump plane reporting | ReutersThe teenager at the center of a closely watched lawsuit blaming social media for his depression and anxiety has dropped his claims against Meta just days before trial. The plaintiff, a 15-year-old known in court papers as R.K.C., had originally sued four companies—Google's YouTube, Meta's Instagram, Snap's Snapchat, and ByteDance's TikTok—alleging their platforms were engineered to be addictive and harmed his mental health. YouTube, TikTok, and Snap all reached confidential settlements earlier, which would have left Meta as the lone defendant when the case went before a Los Angeles jury on July 27. Instead, R.K.C. withdrew, ending the case. Here's why this matters beyond one teenager. His was a “bellwether” case—one of a small set of representative lawsuits chosen from a huge pool of similar claims and tried first, so both sides can see how juries react and use those signals to gauge settlement values across the whole litigation. When a marquee bellwether evaporates right before trial, it sends a message, though an ambiguous one: it could reflect a quiet settlement, a weakness in this particular plaintiff's proof, or simply strategic repositioning. The significance is that the sprawling social-media-harm litigation against these platforms rolls on, but this particular test balloon won't be inflated—depriving both the companies and the thousands of other plaintiffs of a data point they were watching closely.Teen plaintiff suing Meta over mental health harms drops his claims against company days before trial | ReutersA federal judge has cast serious doubt on roughly 69,000 lawsuits claiming that Johnson & Johnson's talc products caused ovarian cancer, warning the plaintiffs they must come forward with better evidence or risk having their cases dismissed. U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh in Trenton, New Jersey, zeroed in on a problem at the heart of the litigation: causation. In a mass tort like this, plaintiffs generally have to show not just that a product can cause harm in the abstract—”general causation”—but that it caused this particular plaintiff's disease—”specific causation.” Judge Singh noted that two of the plaintiffs' own expert witnesses, testifying in preparation for a set of bellwether trials, conceded they could not rule out other possible causes of the women's cancers. That's a serious admission, because it goes to whether the experts can offer an opinion that's admissible at all under the rules that make judges the “gatekeepers” of scientific testimony. If you've been listening, this should ring a bell—it's the same expert-gatekeeping battleground we saw in the Tylenol-autism case, just cutting the other direction. Here the judge ordered plaintiffs to explain, by November 19, why their cases shouldn't be tossed for lack of an admissible expert opinion tying J&J's talc to their specific cancers. The significance is that after years of litigation, settlements, and failed bankruptcy maneuvers, the whole edifice of these 69,000 claims may hinge on a question of scientific proof—and the judge just signaled the plaintiffs have a real problem.US judge casts doubt on 69,000 cases alleging J&J talc caused cancer | ReutersAnd finally, in a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I make an argument that runs underneath a lot of the tax stories we've covered lately: the tax code is only as real as its enforcement. My core claim is that defunding the IRS doesn't actually shrink the tax code—it quietly splits it into two.Here's the framing I start with. Washington has a strange way of talking about tax enforcement. Money to help the IRS collect taxes that are already legally owed gets described as spending, waste, or bureaucratic excess—but when Congress cuts that funding and less revenue comes in, the shortfall gets treated like weather, as if it just happened. I think that's exactly backwards. Congress can write whatever rates, deductions, partnership rules, and anti-abuse provisions it likes, but without skilled auditors and functioning technology, a big chunk of those rules becomes purely aspirational.And crucially, that aspiration isn't evenly distributed. For most wage earners, there's almost no room to maneuver: your income is reported by your employer, your taxes are withheld before you ever see the paycheck, and a computer can flag a mismatch without a human ever looking at your return. But wealthier filers and large businesses often operate through partnerships, closely held entities, cross-border transactions, and complex securities arrangements that take specialized expertise and real time to unwind. So my point is that defunding the IRS doesn't create a smaller tax code—it creates two codes: a statutory, basically inescapable one for people whose income is visible, and a negotiated one for people whose finances are complicated enough to delay, obscure, or contest what they owe. Strip out the enforcement capacity, and the nominal rule stays on the books while its practical effect on the highest earners quietly weakens. That's regressive—a backdoor tax cut for the taxpayers best positioned to resist enforcement.There's a new bill, the Stop CHEATERS Act, that would restore enforcement funding, and I think its sponsors are right about the underlying problem. But I argue they should retire the “fair share” language they've wrapped around it. “Fair share” is subjective—reasonable people can argue forever about whether capital gains should get preferential treatment or whether the top rate is too high or too low, and those are legitimate legislative questions. But that's not the issue here. Congress already wrote the laws; taxpayers are already obligated to follow them. The case for funding the IRS isn't about inventing a new standard of fairness after the fact—it's about consistently administering the standards we already have. By leaning on “fair share,” Democrats risk making basic enforcement sound like a partisan redistribution project when the stronger, harder-to-dismiss argument is simply this: if Congress imposes a tax, the government should be funded well enough to collect it. Anything less isn't restraint or a considered policy choice—it's a quiet exemption for those who can afford to fight.The Tax Code Is Only As Real As Its Enforcement | Forbes 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

July 21, 2026, 6pm: MS NOW's Ari Melber reports on the latest developments in the Iran war and is joined by The New York Times' Molly Jong-Fast and Rev. Al Sharpton. Plus, Melber breaks down the growing fallout over the Trump DOJ's campaign to target journalists. The New York Times' Michael Grinbaum joins. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

NEWS: ​​​​​Impeachment court okays subpoenas for VP's tax, bank records | July 21, 2026Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week, all eyes were on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing to lead the Justice Department. Mary and Andrew begin with their takeaways: from Blanche's “evasive, hyper-technical non-responses” to why his close relationship with Donald Trump is problematic, noting a moment where Blanche referred to himself as “his lawyer” and then quickly corrected himself — which Mary called a Freudian slip. They then turn to Trump's Thursday night address, where he claimed that U.S. elections have been compromised for years. Separating fact from fiction, the co-hosts look at how Trump's undermining of public confidence may affect the upcoming midterms. Mary and Andrew also highlight reporting from the New York Times indicating a slew of cases brought by ICE against protesters and immigrants are failing the sniff test in court. Plus, an update on former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who recently filed a lawsuit alleging the government and others were part of an effort to suppress criticism of Israel from pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Further Reading:  This is the New York Times' reporting on ICE cases falling apart: They Were Charged With Assaulting ICE Agents. The Cases Are Crumbling. And here is their reporting on ICE related shootings: At Least 23 People Have Been Shot at by Federal Immigration Agents Since Last Year Andrew and Mary also wanted to note this new Compendium from Just Security: “Zero Evidence”: How Judges and Grand Juries Have Rejected the Trump Administration Efforts to Investigate and Prosecute Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

July 20, 2026, 6pm: MS NOW's Ari Melber reports on the Iran war escalating as the conflict spreads across neighboring countries. The Atlantic's Tom Nichols joins. Plus, Brian Tyler Cohen, host of the "No Lie" podcast, joins to discuss the growing backlash to President Trump across politics, culture and sports. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

NEWS: ​​​​​Impeach court to decide on move to subpoena VP bank records | July 20, 2026Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcher Tune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes #KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, several New York Times reporters were subpoenaed by the Justice Department for their reporting on Air Force One. On this week's On the Media, how a fifty-year-old Supreme Court ruling left journalists exposed to this kind of legal challenge. Plus, hear how Ebay employees launched a bizarre harassment campaign against a couple of e-commerce reporters. [01:00] Micah Loewinger interviews Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters, about Todd Blanche's recent confirmation hearings, his track record of being a Trump loyalist and frequent Fox News guest, and what his appointment reveals about the shifting independence of the attorney general from the White House.  [16:39] Micah speaks with Lee Levine, media lawyer and author of the upcoming book  In Bad Faith: Earl Caldwell and the Fight for a Free Press, about the Justice Department delivering subpoenas to New York Times journalists for reporting on security concerns regarding the president's new Air Force One, and what we can learn from the history of past presidential administrations weaponizing subpoenas against the press. [32:11]  Brooke Gladstone sits down with Jenny Carchman, director of the documentary Whatever It Takes: Inside the eBay Scandal, to discuss the harassment and intimidation campaign carried out against Ina and David Steiner, the authors of an online e-commerce trade publication, using tactics straight out of horror movies.  Further reading / watching: “With Todd Blanche, MAGA media is finally getting its dream AG,” by Matt Gertz “The Subpoenas Are Coming! The Subpoenas Are Coming!” by Lee Levine In Bad Faith: Earl Caldwell and the Fight for a Free Press by Lee Levine. Whatever It Takes: Inside the eBay Scandal On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Bluesky, TikTok and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

July 16, 2026, 6pm: MS NOW's Ari Melber delivers a special report on accountability for Sen. Susan Collins. Plus, The New York Times has filed a motion to quash subpoenas the Trump DOJ sent to the paper's reporters. MS NOW's Ari Melber reports and is joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This one is a mess on so many levels. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

The Trump administration has issued subpoenas to several New York Times journalists following reporting about alleged security concerns involving President Trump's new Air Force One, a plane donated by Qatar. The case has prompted debate over the balance between protecting national security and safeguarding press freedom. Claire Atkinson, founder of The Media Mix newsletter, outlines the latest developments.The BBC's latest annual report comes as the corporation warns that public service media is facing a period of jeopardy. The figures show a further fall in licence fee-paying households, alongside changing audience habits and continued financial pressures as charter renewal negotiations continue. Rhodri Talfan Davies, the BBC's Deputy Director-General, sets out the corporation's position. Broadcaster and author Iain Dale reflects on a career spanning politics, publishing, blogging and radio following the publication of his memoir Have I Said Too Much?. The interview covers the enduring appeal of the radio phone-in, the influence of social media on broadcasting, and changing relationships between politicians and traditional media.Presenter: Katie Razzall Producer: Lisa Jenkinson Content Producer: Lucy Wai Researcher: Ruth Waites Technical Coordinator: Samuel Iyiola Sound: Allyson Purcell-Davis

July 14, 2026, 6pm: MS NOW's Ari Melber reports on President Trump's string of legal losses and is joined by The New York Times' Molly Jong-Fast and former federal prosecutor John Flannery. Plus, Sen. Cory Booker joins on the eve of Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing for attorney general. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Is the government really wrong to go after reporters who revealed weaknesses in the defensive mechanisms on the new Air Force One? Host Rosemary Armao and guest Mark Wittman disagree about the Trump administration's latest attacks on news-gathering by the New York Times. Do you think the independent press in the US has too many privileges even considering the First Amendment?Mark Wittman is an Investment banker and capital markets specialist with 20-plus years advising executives and boards on global financing, capital structure, and M&A. His career spans Lehman Brothers, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, and SunTrust. Coverage focused on consumer products companies. He holds an MBA from NYU's Stern School of Business and an undergraduate degree from Trinity University.

2 Actions. 2 Minutes. Big Impact. ✍️Join Josh in signing the USA Facts petition demanding truth from the government: bit.ly/3QQ87CS

Katie Razzall presents The Media Show.Broadcaster and author Iain Dale, whose new memoir Have I Said Too Much? is out now, reflects on a career spanning politics, publishing and radio, and considers how public debate and the media have changed.We analyse the BBC's annual report with Rhodri Talfan Davies, Deputy Director-General of the BBC, discussing the corporation's performance, funding pressures and future direction.The programme also looks at proposed changes to the television industry's terms of trade. Joining the discussion are Tim Hincks, Co-CEO of Expectation, and Kate Beal, Founder and CEO of Woodcut Media and a Pact Council member to debate what the reforms could mean for producers, broadcasters and programme rights.Finally, Claire Atkinson, founder of The Media Mix newsletter and contributing editor at The Ankler, joins us from the US to discuss the Trump administration's subpoenas issued to New York Times journalists and the wider implications for press freedom and national security reporting.Producer: Lisa Jenkinson

Journalist Rosemary Armao chats in this week's chapter of her podcast Beyond the Brink and Fighting Back with investment banker Marc Wittman about the blistering federal court ruling against Donald Trump's suit against the IRS. A judge shot down a plan to "settle" a suit the president brought against an agency he controls as so fraudulent that she even referred lawyers arguing it to their bar associations. This matter is likely to be juicy fodder for the Todd Blanche confirmation hearings this week as Acting Attorney General. Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, was cool with an agreement to give the Trump family amnesty for all possible tax violations. The deal also called for a special fund that would compensate people who, like Trump, think they were the subject of government witch hunts. The journalist and financier also talks about what impact AI will have or is having on the economy. Wittman's thoughts differ from the Doomsday predictions we are used to hearing.

With Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing set to begin midweek, Andrew and Mary use this episode to look at the totality of his tenure at the Justice Department, detailing example after example of how — despite his role as the chief lawyer for the United States — he is still functioning as the de facto personal lawyer for the president. They start things off by dissecting a deeply consequential and searing opinion from District Judge Kathleen Williams over Trump's IRS lawsuit, effectively finding, in Mary's telling, that it “was collusion. It was the president being on both sides of that case, and it's no adversity between the parties.” Then, the co-hosts take a broader gaze into what Blanche has done: his handling of the Epstein files and Ghislaine Maxwell, the ongoing investigations and attempted prosecutions of Trump's political enemies and how he has used the DOJ as the president's personal law firm. Mary and Andrew also review the Justice Department's recent actions with Blanche at the helm, including an example from the past week of the ongoing “assault on journalists”: subpoenaing New York Times journalists who wrote about the jet gifted to the US by the Qatari government. Further Reading:  Here is a transcript of Mary's testimony during former Attorney General Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-01-16_-_testimony_-_mccord.pdf Judge Williams' Decision: Here is the Order in Trump v. IRS  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: The Sedition Act of 1798On July 14, 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, the most notorious of the four laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act made it a federal crime to write, print, utter, or publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government of the United States, the Congress, or the President—with the intent to defame them or bring them into disrepute. In plain terms, it criminalized criticism of the government.The context was a Federalist administration, under President John Adams, gripped by fear of France and of domestic dissent, and eager to silence the opposition press aligned with Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. And that's exactly how it was used. Federal prosecutors went after Republican newspaper editors and even a sitting congressman, securing convictions for the crime of harsh political speech. Notably, the Act was written to expire in 1801—conveniently, the moment Adams's term would end—so that it could be wielded against his critics but would not outlive his own hold on power.The reaction was fierce and consequential. Jefferson and James Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions arguing the Act was unconstitutional, and the ensuing backlash helped sweep Jefferson into the presidency in 1800; once in office, he pardoned those convicted under it. The Sedition Act was never tested at the Supreme Court, but history rendered its verdict. More than a century and a half later, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court looked back and declared that the Act's assault on free expression had been repudiated “in the court of history,” using it as a touchstone for modern First Amendment law. The lesson of July 14, 1798 endures: laws that punish criticism of the government are almost always tools of the powerful against their critics—and a free press is most necessary precisely when the state would prefer it silent.Federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas seeking to compel four New York Times journalists to testify before a Manhattan grand jury, part of a leak investigation into the paper's reporting on security concerns surrounding President Trump's flight on the new Qatari-donated Air Force One. Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Here's the legal terrain. There is no absolute federal reporter's privilege—the Supreme Court held decades ago that the First Amendment doesn't categorically shield journalists from grand jury subpoenas—but the Justice Department has long operated under internal guidelines that made going after reporters a last resort. Those guardrails matter here, because in 2025 Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that had sharply limited subpoenas against journalists, restoring broader authority to pursue them. The Times says it will fight, and can ask a court to quash the subpoenas as overbroad, issued in bad faith, or violating the First Amendment. The significance is the pressure this puts on newsgathering: when the government can subpoena reporters to unmask their sources, sources stop talking, and the kind of national-security reporting at issue here gets harder to do. Press-freedom groups warn this administration has reached for subpoenas and search warrants against journalists—at the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal—more freely than its predecessors.Explainer: Can prosecutors compel New York Times journalists to testify in leak probe? | ReutersA federal judge has voided President Trump's roughly $1.78 billion settlement with the IRS, delivering a scathing rebuke and referring his lawyers for possible discipline. The backstory is unusual. Trump sued his own administration in January over the leak of his tax returns, and by late May had reached a deal with the IRS to create an “anti-weaponization” fund and to “forever bar” the government from any action related to his past tax returns—protection extending to his family and businesses. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found the whole thing was a setup. The core legal defect is the absence of what courts call adverseness. Federal courts can only decide genuine “cases or controversies”—real disputes between opposing parties. Here, Judge Williams wrote, “there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” because Trump was effectively suing himself, with his own Justice Department on the other side agreeing to lose. She found the case was brought for an improper purpose: to get a court's stamp of legitimacy on a settlement with no basis in law or fact. She sanctioned Trump's attorneys and referred one, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar, and suggested Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should face discipline too. The significance is a court refusing to be used as a rubber stamp—insisting that its legitimacy can't be borrowed to bless a collusive deal dressed up as litigation.US judge voids Trump's settlement with IRS | ReutersA federal appeals court has revived more than 500 private lawsuits against Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, alleging that acetaminophen use during pregnancy caused autism and ADHD in children—and here it's worth being clear about the science before the law. There is no firm scientific evidence that Tylenol causes autism or ADHD. The most rigorous recent research, including a large Swedish sibling-comparison study of millions of children, found no causal link once you control for genetic and environmental factors shared within families; mainstream medical bodies continue to regard acetaminophen as one of the safer pain and fever options in pregnancy, and untreated high fevers carry their own real risks. So this ruling is not a finding that Tylenol is dangerous. What the Second Circuit actually decided was narrower and procedural: that the trial judge had wrongly excluded the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Under the rules governing expert testimony, judges act as “gatekeepers,” admitting expert opinion only if it rests on reliable methodology. The district court had tossed the plaintiffs' experts as unreliable; the appeals court, per Judge Guido Calabresi, said their methods reflected approaches other scientists use and amounted to “acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree.” Crucially, the court stressed it was not deciding whether Tylenol actually causes these conditions. The significance is about who weighs contested science—the ruling lets juries, not just judges, hear the dispute, which is a real win for the plaintiffs procedurally even though the underlying causation case remains, on the current evidence, weak.US appeals court revives private lawsuits linking Tylenol to autism, ADHD | ReutersAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on a counterintuitive idea: that big corporate taxpayers may come to miss the boring, predictable world of administrative tax law now that the Supreme Court has overruled Chevron deference. My argument, in short, is that a weaker IRS and Treasury is not the unalloyed win a lot of multinationals assume it is.Here's the setup. For forty years, under Chevron, courts deferred to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. With Chevron gone, courts no longer have to defer to Treasury's reading of the tax code just because the statute is vague and the agency has expertise. A lot of corporate taxpayers cheered that—less agency power sounds like more freedom. But my point is that killing Chevron did nothing to remove the underlying ambiguity in the tax code; it just moved the job of resolving that ambiguity to a different desk. And there are only two other desks it can land on, and I don't love either one for a company that wants predictability.The first desk belongs to the courts. If Treasury can't issue as many binding, prospective rules, then more of these questions get resolved through litigation—case by case, on particular records, often years after the transactions are done. Courts are built to handle controversies, not to administer a global corporate tax system. The Coca-Cola transfer-pricing fight is the stress test I point to: a company may win a great refund that way, but you can't organize a multinational's affairs around the hope that every ambiguous question turns into a bespoke judicial adventure. The second desk belongs to Congress, which is the more democratically satisfying answer—Congress writes the code and is politically accountable. But in practice Congress moves slowly and episodically, usually only when tax changes ride along on some bigger budget deal. By the time Congress fixes an international tax problem, the business model that created it has been reorganized twice and pivoted to something involving AI.So the core of my argument is that corporate taxpayers need to distinguish between a useful litigation win and a stable legal environment—those two things don't always travel together. A bad but clear rule can be modeled and planned around; an ambiguous rule, as I put it, isn't really a rule, it's a threat in the shape of a Treasury notice. My prescription is that Congress should make clearer, more deliberate delegations where technical administration is unavoidable—transfer pricing, international tax, anti-abuse rules—and that Treasury should do a post-Chevron audit of its own regulations to flag where the code is asking too much of administration and too little of legislation. Because the real choice here isn't between IRS power and taxpayer freedom. It's between prospective administration and retroactive improvisation—and multinationals may get their wish, see the IRS diminished, and then find themselves stuck with rules everyone knows are broken but no one can fix.Big Corporate Taxpayers Need More Clarity in a Post-Chevron World | Bloomberg Tax 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

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Sen. Lindsey Graham Passes Away; Here's What We Know and What Happens Now (1:10) Sen. Mitch McConnell Posts Health Update After Weeks in the Hospital (~17:41) DOJ Subpoenas NY Times Reporters Who Allegedly Received Information from Secret Service Officials (~19:31) Bipartisan Housing Affordability Bill Becomes Law Without Trump's Signature. Here's What's In It. (~27:16) What We Know About the Fatal ICE-Involved Shooting in Maine and Why Not All Agents Are Wearing Body Cams (~34:46) Quick Hitters (~39:39) Critical Thinking Segment (~45:22) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Thanks to Ground News for sponsoring the show! Only by using my link, you can get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan! Go to groundnews.com/up. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Trump subpoenas Times journalistsFencing off Lafayette SquareRubio governs Venezuela as viceroySettlers detain Ro KhannaCDC cuts unleash a parasiteSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The subpoenas came after New York Times journalists reported on security concerns related to the Qatar-donated Air Force One plane that President Trump has used.Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Several New York Times journalists were summoned to testify under oath after they reported alleged security concerns involving President Donald Trump's new Air Force One plane, the US newspaper said. Also on the programme: firefighters have for the first time started to contain wildfires in southern Spain which have killed at least 12 people; and Czech tennis player Linda Noskova beat her friend Karolina Muchova in an extraordinary and dramatic Wimbledon final.(Photo: US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters mid-flight in the press cabin of the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One after changing planes to return to Washington from RAF Mildenhall, Britain on July 8, 2026. Credit: Reuters)

Andrew Weissmann joins Sarah Longwell to discuss a big week in legal news: DOJ's stunning concession in a reporter's lawsuit over the Epstein files, the questions senators must make Todd Blanche answer at his confirmation hearing, and the Trump-appointed judge who torched DOJ's demand for the names of every 2020 election worker in Fulton County. Plus: the DOJ letter that signals a plan to challenge the 2026 midterms, and the Supreme Court's surprising ruling on your phone's location data.Reining in a Rogue Supreme Court by Norman Ornsteinhttps://www.contrariannews.org/p/reining-in-a-rogue-supreme-courtBe your own boss. No dress code, no commute, no Steve from accounting. Free trial at https://shopify.com/illegalnews Head to https://FactorMeals.com/ILLEGALNEWS50OFF and use code illegalnews50off to get 50 percent off and free daily greens per box, with new subscription only, while supplies last until 09/27/2026.

Leon Black appeared before the House Oversight Committee for a closed-door interview about his decades-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but the session escalated when Black refused to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements involving women. Chairman James Comer issued two subpoenas: one compelling Black to return for a deposition on July 16, and another demanding records related to those NDAs. Comer said lawmakers want to know whether Epstein was involved in drafting, funding, arranging, or otherwise using the agreements to silence women. Black's attorney Susan Estrich called the subpoenas a “planned political stunt” and said Epstein had no involvement with any NDAs, whether they exist or not.Black denied abusing women, denied trafficking, denied being blackmailed, and denied paying Epstein for access to women, saying the more than $170 million he paid Epstein was for tax and estate-planning advice. He described Epstein as living a “Jekyll and Hyde” existence, saying he knew Epstein's connected, useful side but not his criminal side, and claimed Epstein lied to him about the nature of his 2008 conviction. Lawmakers were openly skeptical, especially because Black's payments gave Epstein a massive post-conviction financial lifeline, and because newly released Epstein files reportedly mention Black thousands of times. The appearance left Black still insisting he was deceived, while Congress signaled that his Epstein relationship, private settlements, and financial dealings are far from finished business.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protnmail.comsource:Comer subpoenas Leon Black after his refusal to answer some Epstein questions from panel - ABC News

The Supreme Court just struck down President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship in a 5-4 decision — and if you care about what this means for border security and the value of American citizenship, you need to see this before the media spin it their way. In the Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling, the majority said the 14th Amendment requires citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, including children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists. This keeps alive a policy that many argue rewards illegal entry and fuels birth tourism, with estimates of over 250,000 such births annually. Taxpayers end up covering costs for education, health care, and welfare programs tied to these citizenship grants. The Trump birthright citizenship order was an attempt to close what critics call a massive loophole in immigration enforcement. Dissenting justices pushed back hard, saying this stretches the Constitution beyond its post-Civil War purpose of securing rights for newly freed slaves. President Trump noted that with the legal process complete, Congress now has a clearer path to legislation that could limit birthright citizenship going forward. For regular Americans who want immigration laws that actually work and citizenship that isn't diluted, this ruling raises big questions about how much the courts can lock in policy versus what elected representatives can still do. Pat also covered: Netflix to use AI Gene Wilder voice in Willy Wonka reality show. Kristi Noem's husband continues to participate in the bimbofication fetish. Is Pat Gray LEAVING the Mormon Church? Candace Owens claims BYU is a CIA recruitment headquarters. Zohran Mamdani gives updates on how socialism is working in NYC. Do you think birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants makes sense in today's world? What would real reform on this issue look like to you and your family? If you want unfiltered truth and common-sense analysis that cuts through the noise, hit subscribe and turn on notifications. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:14 Birthright Citizenship is UPHELD?! 08:46 Mike Johnson Learns about Birthright Citizenship Ruling 09:51 Ron DeSantis on Birthright Citizenship Ruling 12:05 Shannon Bream Reads Statements from Dissenting Justices 15:58 JD Vance on Birthright Citizenship Ruling 19:19 Biological Males in Women's Sports Ruling 19:48 West Virginia Parents on Males in Women's Sports Ruling 23:25 Ketanji Brown Jackson on "Transgender Discrimination" 24:25 Democrats will Pass the Equality Act if Back in Power 25:35 More Insane Candidates from The Left 32:20 NBC's Trigger Warning for Males in Women's Sports Ruling 33:32 Chewing the Fat 49:56 Pat Gray Gets Even More Petty about the word 'Unleashed' 50:38 Talking about Jeff Bezos 52:18 Caller Jerry 53:01 Caller Paul 54:48 Radical, Israel-Hating California Teacher 57:24 Pramila Jayapal DOES NOT CARE about Angel Families! 59:25 Jessica Gorman Stands Up to Pramila Jayapal 1:03:30 America's 250th Birthday This Saturday!!! 1:04:29 Rand Paul Issues a Subpoena for Anthony Fauci 1:05:56 What's Going on with the Noems? 1:12:30 Candace Owens Investigating BYU??? 1:16:50 Zohran Mamdani on Why Socialism "Works" 1:18:35 Katharine Birbalsingh on Socialism Affecting Young People 1:27:55 Video from Fresno County Sheriff's Office 1:33:20 Street Preachers Talk with Fort Worth Cops Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. has lifted oil sanctions on Iran for the first time in decades, letting Tehran sell its oil openly at higher prices meant to push Iran to comply on its nuclear program, even as the two sides are already split over whether Iran agreed to let inspectors back in. President Trump heads to Pennsylvania today to talk up the economy and his promise that gas and grocery prices will fall now that the war is ending, but his approval is at record lows with even some Republicans unhappy over his handling of the economy. And a federal judge in Minnesota threw out grand jury subpoenas from the Trump administration, ruling they were used to harass and retaliate against state and local officials who wouldn't help carry out the president's immigration crackdown.Want more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Tina Kraja, Rebekah Metzler, Cheryl Corley, Mohamad ElBardicy, and John Stolnis.It was produced by Ziad Buchh and Nia Dumas.Our director is Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Neisha Heinis. Our technical director is Carleigh Strange.And our Supervising Senior Producer is Vince Pearson.(0:00) Introduction(01:57) US Lifts Oil Sanctions On Iran(05:23) Trump Shifts To Economy(09:17) Minnesota Subpoenas Thrown OutSee pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy