Podcasts about Supremacy Clause

This Day in Legal History: The First Act of CongressOn this day in 1789, President George Washington signed the first statute ever enacted by Congress under the new Constitution — “An Act to Regulate the Time and Manner of Administering Certain Oaths,” codified at 1 Stat. 23. The substance was modest: the law prescribed the form of the oath that members of Congress, federal judges, and executive officers were to take to support the Constitution, and gave the states a window in which to swear in their own officials. But the symbolism was enormous. It was the first time the new federal government did the thing governments actually do, which is to pass a law and require people to obey it, and the choice of subject was telling.Before Congress regulated commerce, levied taxes, or built courts, it bound its own officers to the Constitution by oath. The oath clauses in Article II and Article VI have been doing quiet doctrinal work ever since: they ground the Supremacy Clause, they undergird Marbury's claim that judges are bound to follow the Constitution as supreme law, and they sit at the center of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 disqualification debate that the Supreme Court took up in Trump v. Anderson just two years ago. The Oath Act of 1789 is not the kind of statute that gets quoted on bar exams, but it is the original instance of Congress speaking in legal form, and everything the federal government has done since rests on top of it.Uber went after one of its own bellwether plaintiffs Friday in the sprawling multidistrict litigation over alleged passenger sexual assaults, asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros in the Northern District of California to impose sanctions on plaintiff B.L. and her counsel at Wagstaff Law Firm for what Uber called “pervasive bad faith” in discovery.The headline accusation, made by Kirkland & Ellis's Michael Vives for Uber, is that B.L.'s privilege log cites cases that don't exist — what Vives suggested may be “hallucinated case law” generated by an AI tool — and Vives floated that as an independent basis for sanctions on top of the alleged document withholding, redactions, and undisclosed witnesses Uber catalogued in its April motion.he legal vehicle here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which gives a federal court a tiered menu of sanctions for discovery misconduct — fees and costs at the low end, adverse-inference instructions and claim preclusion at the high end — and Uber is asking the court to throw B.L.'s case out of the next bellwether wave entirely. Judge Cisneros noticed during the hearing that what struck her about the briefing was the pattern, not any single incident; she pointed to one example where the plaintiff identified a person as a “friend” and only later produced a fuller set of text messages showing the person was actually a therapist.The judge ordered the plaintiff to file a sur-reply by Thursday before ruling, which means a sanctions order is now teed up. The case sits within In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) before Judge Charles R. Breyer, and any sanctions ruling will set the tone for how the rest of the bellwether pool conducts discovery. If the hallucinated-caselaw piece sticks, this also becomes one of the first real Rule 11 / Rule 37 hybrid sanctions vehicles for generative AI misuse in the MDL context — and the bar will be reading it closely.‘Pervasive Bad Faith': Uber Targets Sex Assault MDL Plaintiff | Law360The Seventh Circuit on Friday told the Northern District of Illinois that the now-standard practice of serving Chinese e-commerce defendants by email in “Schedule A” trademark cases doesn't fly under the Hague Service Convention — at least not when the convention applies, which is a question the district court has to actually answer first. The dispute came up in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., No. 25-2205, where the hat-maker Kangol sued more than twenty Chinese vendors for trademark infringement and identified them on a sealed “Schedule A” exhibit attached to the complaint — the same procedural pattern that drives the enormous Schedule A docket in Chicago's federal court.Kangol got a default judgment after serving the defendants by email, but one defendant, Hangzhou Chuanyue, appeared and moved to vacate, arguing that the Hague Convention prohibits email service in China and that the convention applies because Hangzhou's address is discoverable. The legal hook is Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which permits service “by postal channels” only when the destination state has not objected — and China has affirmatively objected to Article 10(a), full stop.The Seventh Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, held that whether or not email counts as a “postal channel,” Article 10(a) is unavailable in China, so email service in this case was improper if the convention applied at all. The panel — Judges Thomas Kirsch, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Doris Pryor — reversed the denial of Hangzhou's motion to vacate and sent the case back for the threshold question the district court skipped: did Kangol make reasonably diligent efforts to find Hangzhou's address, which would have triggered the convention.The practical fallout will reach hundreds, possibly thousands, of pending Schedule A cases in Chicago that rely on email service as a matter of course, and plaintiff firms in this space will be scrambling to redo their service strategy.7th Circ. Revives Chinese IP Defendants' Email Service Case | Law360The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Thursday transferred Randall King's proposed class action — the vehicle for a proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement with Monsanto — into the Northern District of California MDL before Judge Vince Chhabria, despite vehement objections from absent class members who want the case to stay in Missouri state court.The case-within-a-case is unusual: the King action was filed and preliminarily settled in Missouri state court, then a group of objectors (represented by Keller Postman) removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the JPML then tagged it for transfer to the consolidated Roundup MDL. The legal hook here is 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML's transfer authority — paired with CAFA's removal rules, which the settling plaintiffs argue were misused because the objectors aren't “defendants” within the meaning of § 1453 and so cannot remove.The objectors counter that the $7.25 billion deal “launders a liability-management scheme through the courts” by funneling claims of Roundup cancer victims through a Missouri state-court class that an MDL judge would never approve, and they want federal-court scrutiny under Rule 23 and the standards Judge Chhabria has spent years developing in the Roundup litigation. Monsanto, for its part, is on the objectors' side of the venue question — at least tactically — telling Law360 that the case should go back to Missouri state court and it will move to oppose the transfer order.The whole fight is also tied up with the Supreme Court's pending decision in a separate Monsanto case that will determine whether the deal survives at all, because the proposed $7.25 billion is structured around what the Court does there. Whichever way this remand/transfer fight comes out, it is going to be cited in every future class-settlement-jurisdiction tug-of-war for the rest of the decade.$7.25B Roundup Deal Sent To Calif. MDL | Law360A U.S. district judge in Florida said Saturday she will take a closer look at the settlement the Trump administration has reached with itself — or more precisely, with President Trump in his personal capacity — over a long-running IRS lawsuit, scheduling further proceedings to examine whether the deal can stand.The procedural posture is what makes this one interesting: the case involves a federal agency under the President's control settling claims with the President personally, which raises immediate questions about whether anyone is actually adverse to anyone, and whether the resulting consent decree or stipulation can carry the legal weight a normal settlement does. The legal mechanism the judge appears to be invoking is the federal court's inherent supervisory authority over consent decrees and settlements involving the federal government, an authority that runs through cases like Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland and that the Tunney Act formalizes for antitrust settlements — though here there is no Tunney Act, just the general principle that a federal court doesn't have to rubber-stamp a settlement when there are serious questions about whether the United States was actually represented in the negotiation.The hearing on the issue was set for late May in Miami, with the judge reportedly skeptical that the deal can be approved without further factual development. The political stakes are obvious, but the legal stakes are arguably bigger: if the court can refuse to approve the settlement on the ground that the executive branch was not adverse to itself in any meaningful way, it would create a precedent that constrains every future administration's ability to make its own personal litigation go away through agency action. Expect this one to generate appellate motion practice within weeks.US judge orders review of Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement | 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

DOCKET ALERTS:Joe Dye begins a series on the second phase of the redistricting wars at his Substack. Multiple states are threatening to tax payouts from Trump's slush fund at 100 percent. The Trump Administration is suing Massachusetts for failing to give “confidential,” hard to trace license plates to ICE and CBP.A panel of federal judges in Alabama once again rejected the state's congressional map as an illegal racial gerrymander. The state has appealed to SCOTUS.Don Lemon moved to unseal the grand jury transcript in the Cities Church protest prosecution. He cited the recently unsealed magistrate's docket, showing the government's wild overreach — not to mention incompetence — in its warrant applications, along with the many cases where courts have said the DOJ is currently lawless and entitled to no presumption of regularity.The New York Times had a wild story this week about the Justice Department's total loss of credibility with grand juries, including in Wyoming, where the US Attorney's total violation of grand jury rules led to the dismissal of nine indictments.MAIN SHOW:The US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois is reportedly investigating E. Jean Carroll for perjury. In a deposition in 2022, Carroll misspoke and said that her litigation was not being funded by anyone else. She later corrected the record to say that some of her fees were being paid by a nonprofit associated with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. The government is trying to do to that nonprofit what it's done to the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleging that it somehow conspired to hide its activities by getting Carroll to lie under oath.Meanwhile, the SPLC is moving to dismiss its case based on vindictive prosecution. Luckily it has eleventy-seven clips of Trump officials declaring that they're on a revenge mission to take out the civil rights organization.In non-political news, a drag queen named Pattie Gonia is in a trademark dispute with the brand Patagonia. SUBSCRIBER BONUS:Trump is making NDAs great again.How Democrats Can Take Back the Redistricting Wars Pt. 1https://josephdye.substack.com/p/how-democrats-can-take-back-the-redistrictingUS v. Massachusetts [Confidential License Plates]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73400637/united-states-v-the-commonwealth-of-massachusetts/Milligan v. Allenhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61494291/milligan-v-allenUS v. Levy-Armstrong [Cities Church/Don Lemon]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/In re Search Warrant [Cities Church/Don Lemon magistrate docket]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72323660/in-re-search-warrant/As Trump Politicizes Justice Dept., Prosecutors Struggle With Grand Jurieshttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/us/politics/trump-justice-department-grand-juries.htmlDOJ probes Democratic-allied nonprofit that helped fund E. Jean Carroll's legal billshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/05/28/doj-probes-reid-hoffmans-nonprofit-funding-e-jean-carrolls-legal-bills/US v. Southern Poverty Law Center [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73223865/united-states-v-southern-poverty-law-center-inc/Patagonia, Inc. v. Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. (“Patty Gonia”) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72169060/patagonia-inc-v-entrepreneur-enterprises-inc/Pattie Gonia Instagram responding to lawsuithttps://www.instagram.com/p/DY2L725tVow/Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The hosts and a panel of political experts analyze a series of high-stakes developments ranging from New York state legislation to international diplomacy. A primary focus is placed on Governor Kathy Hochul's controversial mask ban for federal agents and her refusal to cooperate with ICE, which the panel critiques as a likely violation of the Supremacy Clause. The discussion transitions into global affairs with an interview featuring Lara Trump, who provides an exclusive look at President Trump's negotiations with Iran and his "America First" approach to preventing nuclear escalation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The team's discussion centers on the political climate in New York, specifically criticizing the record-breaking state budget and Governor Hochul's controversial new sanctuary city legislation. Legal experts on the panel argue that the law, which restricts cooperation with federal agents and bans them from wearing masks, violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and serves as a performative gesture to the governor's base. The conversation shifts to a sharp condemnation of Mayor Mandani, who is labeled a divisive leader for his refusal to participate in the upcoming Israel Day Parade and his alleged snubbing of the Puerto Rican community. Guest Harley Lippman frames this mayoral boycott as part of a rising tide of anti-Semitism comparable to the 1930s, ultimately positioning the segment as a critique of leaders who prioritize ideological agendas over communal unity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2kJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kfFOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nzTODAY's MEMBERS-ONLY SHOW: “Trump Fears SCOTUS Will NOT Close Invasion Loophole!”YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/7erdjy37Locals: https://tinyurl.com/2npwy8jyCalifornia thought it could seize authority over federal law enforcement — but the 9th Circuit just reminded Sacramento who actually runs the country. In a unanimous 3-0 decision in US v. California, a federal appeals court has enjoined California's "No Vigilantes Act," the state law designed to force ICE agents to wear visible identification during enforcement operations. The court didn't hedge or split hairs: when state law directly regulates the federal government's performance of its functions, the Supremacy Clause voids it — full stop.This is a stinging rebuke of Governor Gavin Newsom's deliberate strategy to obstruct federal immigration enforcement through legislation. The panel, authored by Trump-appointee Judge Mark Bennett, rejected California's public safety fig leaf outright, ruling that constitutional supremacy isn't subject to a balancing test. "The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation." Done.This is the second blow to California's anti-ICE legal campaign in two months — and another courtroom victory for the Trump administration. The Constitution is not a menu from which ambitious governors get to order selectively. Today, the 9th Circuit made sure Newsom knows it.Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down!Episode #1301.

Episode 291-Drop Your Socks and Grab Your Glocks Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 291 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Second Amendment, gerrymandering, New Jersey, federal law, AK-47, AR-15, gun laws, Supreme Court, carry permit, gun dealers, political power, racial discrimination, gun ownership, legal battles. SPEAKERS Speaker 1, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what’s on your mind today? Teddy Nappen 00:27 Well, I never realized the guy that wrote the Zombie Survival Guide, Max Brooks, was related to Mel Brooks. I thought it was a common name. Evan Nappen 00:38 What? How is he related to Mel Brooks? Teddy Nappen 00:40 It’s his son, so. Evan Nappen 00:42 Oh, my G-d! Is he gonna make a movie, you know, Young Zombie or something? Teddy Nappen 00:44 Yeah, no, Young Zombie. Evan Nappen 00:46 Or a zombie movie with lots of farts? Page – 2 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 00:52 No. Evan Nappen 00:53 Blazing Zombies, Blazing Zombies. Teddy Nappen 00:55 Yeah! Blazing Zombies, that’s it, kind of like what was it, Abraham Lincoln and the Vampire Abraham Lincoln. Evan Nappen 01:02 Right. I think Blazing Zombies would probably be very popular. Teddy Nappen 01:06 Yeah, I know, right. Let’s see them try to reboot Blazing Saddles. Good luck with that. Evan Nappen 01:12 Well, they could do Blazing. Yeah, but if they did Blazing Zombies, they would never be able to say certain words that they used in Blazing Saddles. Teddy Nappen 01:23 Yeah, like calling the zombies a bunch of leg draggers. Evan Nappen 01:26 Ha, ha, ha, ha. Actually, we’re kind of dealing with a zombie apocalypse with the Democrat party lately. I think they are a bunch of, you know. They don’t have brains. They just try to eat brains. Teddy Nappen 01:48 Yeah. And unfortunately, they keep coming up with new ideas to screw us out of our rights. Evan Nappen 01:55 Right! That’s it. That’s what they do. They send the horde out to eat our rights. They do the horde, and they just try to get everybody on board to sacrifice for their pure unadulterated political power. Like trying to get college athletes to boycott their entire athletic career, over, for example, they’re flipping out over the ending of racial gerrymandering. I mean, it’s kind of unbelievable when you watch them talk about this being, you know, Jim Crow II, when all that is being done is ending racial discrimination, with setting up voting districts. Somehow ending racial discrimination is Jim Crow. Only a Democrat with zombie brains could ever make that argument with a straight face. Teddy Nappen 02:59 Well, it’s also very funny because, if you cut to all of New England, where the breakdown is roughly like 40 to 50% Republican, and there’s no representation for that. And so, they, and it’s all the states are heavily, heavily gerrymandered, like zero representation for Republicans, but oh, that’s fine. It’s only Page – 3 – of 14 when the Republicans say, you know what? You’ve established the rules of engagement, and we will oblige. That’s just how the game is played. Evan Nappen 03:29 Now, you would think that the Democrats would have expert knowledge on Jim Crow, because they’re the ones that started it. The original Jim Crow laws were done by Democrats after the Civil War. And, of course, who opposed the Civil Rights Act? The Democrats. They were the originals. And then for them to get up now and claim how much they want to oppose what they are perceiving as Jim Crow laws are kind of rich. And, of course, it isn’t. It is the actual elimination of the racial discrimination that is in place by way of their gerrymandering, and this is very important to our gun rights, Teddy. Very important to our gun rights. As voting is turned around, so that it actually reflects the voters, as opposed to these bizarre jurisdictions engineered for Democrats just to maintain power, we will see more and more advances in the fight for our gun rights. It is the other side there that constantly is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 04:52 What always makes me laugh, though, is they always try to say the party switched. They always make that argument. By the way, it’s a completely disproven argument. Like, okay, what time period? Was it under Senator (Robert) Byrd, who was a, what was it? The Grand Wizard? Evan Nappen 05:07 The Grand Wizard of the KKK. Teddy Nappen 05:10 Which, by the way, he was a mentor to Joe Biden throughout his political career. But no one talks about that. Or when Joe Biden, what did Joe Biden say on the stage? Evan Nappen 05:21 Oh, don’t even. Teddy Nappen 05:21 Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah. Evan Nappen 05:25 party, Evan Nappen 05:25 The party hasn’t switched. They’re just trying to build a bigger fence with a plantation. They are the ones trying to run a plantation, and that’s what gerrymandering, prior to this Calais Supreme Court case, that’s what it was really about. How does the Democrat maintain their plantations of voter districts, to maintain their power? Page – 4 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:50 Yeah, exactly. They put up the creation that Johnson, what was it? We’re going to get these guys voting Democrat for the rest of their lives. They created the giant welfare state. Evan Nappen 06:01 Yeah. And by the way, he didn’t even call them “these guys”. Teddy Nappen 06:05 I know I was trying to, I was paraphrasing. Evan Nappen 06:11 Describing them. Yeah, just their hypocrisy definitely knows no bounds, and this time period now is somewhat encouraging, because a lot of everything that they’ve built on, including taking our gun rights, it’s collapsing all around them. It’s very encouraging to see that. You just saw the primaries go here. Trump with what 34 zero or whatever on his picks, and that helps get us further with the expansion of our Second Amendment rights. This is all a part. Because part of MAGA is the rebirth of the power of the Second Amendment, that is a part of MAGA, guys. You’ve got to know that, and you can see it. We are now in a completely different world than in the Biden era. I mean, Biden was essentially engaging in a clamp down, a clamp down on our rights in every way that he could abuse federal power to do so. And we’re seeing incredible changes in the other direction now. Teddy Nappen 07:29 I’ll give you the highlight of that. We dealt with this, where it was weaponization. They were going after dealers for the most minuscule things with a zero tolerance. And now that’s been eliminated, and it has been helping. Of course, New Jersey picks up the mantle from their new AG. Now they’re going after FFL dealers and demanding records detailing the sales of Glocks, which I could have sworn they already knew about the sales, because every time you purchase. Evan Nappen 08:01 Yeah, this is what is such crap about these subpoenas to all the dealers to turn over their records of the last decade for every Glock sold. New Jersey has a pistol purchase permit system, which is a form of register. So, the State Police already have the computerized registered database of every purchase of a Glock since the computerization of the pistol permit system, which completely covers the decade that they’re requesting. In other words, the only reason for this subpoena is essentially, in my opinion, to harass dealers because the information itself is already at their fingertips. Now, the bigger legal question is, is that something legally they’re allowed to access because New Jersey has Administrative Code provisions that mandate confidentiality on all gun records of purchase acquisition. All that kind of stuff is protected by that confidentiality. So, maybe they themselves thought that trying to just get dealer records, maybe could do an end run over their own Administrative Code, preventing the release of this information. Although there is a provision in the Code that says for law enforcement purposes it can be accessed. But this is a lawsuit, not law enforcement purposes. So, it really is interesting the approach they’re taking. If they’re righteous in the law, in being able to access this data, then they can access it through the database in the appropriate legal manner, if they are qualified. And if not, why are they subpoenaing dealers to turn over information that is already in the possession of the State of New Page – 5 – of 14 Jersey? And these application forms, et cetera, are protected by way of their own Administrative Code provisions, setting out confidentiality. Teddy Nappen 10:20 So, Teddy Nappen 10:21 Yeah, I will say what’s really messed up is I love the AG’s response. So, this was actually from 2A News Team. They asked these questions and the AG responded. Oh no, no. These requests are not seeking information about individual purchasers or any person’s identifying information about their purchases. However, the subpoena says that exact wording. Evan Nappen 10:50 Right. Teddy Nappen 10:51 Documents show sufficient sale or transfer of Glock handguns from you to New Jersey customers. Literally, it’s the first line in the subpoena. Evan Nappen 11:03 Right. And the thing about Glocks. Look, if you own a Glock, you know you better hold on to it. This is the new tactic of the anti-Second Amendment rights movement. To try to ban and restrict Glocks because of a claim that they can be relatively easily converted to fully automatic using what’s called a Glock switch. But mere possession of a Glock switch under federal law is considered a machine gun in and of itself, and these switches are banned in New Jersey as well. The component is already illegal. So, trying to link Glocks to them so that they can further take away one of the most popular self-defense handguns in the world. This is their gambit. This is their gambit now to try to do that. Teddy Nappen 12:10 So, it was also interesting, is pull it was from the article. Out of the 15 FFLs that they subpoenaed, they were roughly, there was 15 of those FFLs were out of the total authorized Glock dealers. So, I’m trying to think the strategy of it. If they’re trying, if these were just the 15, were kind of like where they went after those two gun dealers and forced them to basically have to essentially declare and register every purchase or gun-related material. Are they just going for the small fish to then go after the whole? Kind of like a staff? Teddy Nappen 12:46 Out of curiosity. Could there be a constitutional challenge because there’s a federal firearms license? Could you either make the Supremacy Clause argument or just going with the idea of there shouldn’t be a state license, too? Evan Nappen 12:46 Okay. At a minimum, it’s designed to harass gun dealers. I mean, New Jersey is dedicated to that principle, given the excesses that they go to regarding being a New Jersey retail firearm dealer. I mean Page – 6 – of 14 having an FFL, that’s a federal firearm license. New Jersey also requires for a dealer to have a New Jersey retail dealer firearms license, and the retail dealer firearms license is what is managed by the state of New Jersey. And that’s where you see an incredibly excessive and additional amount of requirements, far beyond what federal law requires, designed to be a legal discouragement to being a dealer. Also, it’s been used in the past as a pretext to raid individuals that had FFLs but did not have a NJ retail dealer license. I’ve had cases on this where individuals that had a federal firearms license for Curio and Relic, collector licenses, the state alleged they were federal firearm licensees and acting as dealers, which they were not. They are collectors. And because they alleged they had a federal license, they needed a New Jersey firearm retail dealer license. They proceeded to conduct raids on the individuals that held Curio and Relic licenses. So, this is one of the risks out there. They were able to purge and merge the federal list to the state list of New Jersey retailers. Evan Nappen 14:31 Well, the problem is that the federal firearm law is expressly not preemptive. It’s designed to be the absolute minimum gun control harassment that exists throughout the entire country. And then states are invited to, you know, this was the philosophy, invited to go wild. So, you have the baseline of the federal law, which has many constitutional questions about it itself, expressly not being preemptive, and the states are left to their own devices to create whatever stricter and stricter and more harassing and more discouraging gun laws that they want to pass. And as long as those laws are somehow upheld constitutionally, they can keep on going. There is no cap. There’s no cap placed on the attack on our rights. It should exist, but doesn’t, except in a few very narrow areas where there is express preemption. Evan Nappen 16:22 One of those places where there is express preemption is Title 18 926 A for interstate transport of your guns. You can transport your guns cased, unloaded, locked, not readily accessible, etc., so that you can go through bad states in your travels. There’s areas of preemption, specifically for carry, like LEOSA, Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, where retired and active law enforcement can carry, regardless of the state law that might otherwise try to prevent them from doing so. There’s actually preemption for carry. It was the original carry preemption, which a lot of people don’t know was for armored car security. Armored car personnel was actually the first federal carry preemption. And then today we’re pushing to try to get national reciprocity, which is in effect national preemption, mandating that every state recognize every other state’s carry rights to that particular resident in whatever state that resident might be in. But generally across 99% of all the federal gun laws, it is expressly not preemptive. So, this is where the problems come in, because there is no cap on the damage that states can do. Teddy Nappen 17:55 So, it would require an, it would basically either require an act of Congress to amend it to include the preemption. Evan Nappen 18:02 Yes, literally, what would be great is if we finally get a cap. Now, in theory, the cap on bad gun laws is this little thing we call the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment’s cap was fairly broad. The Page – 7 – of 14 cap, as I recall, it said shall not be infringed. Okay? Shall not be infringed. So, any infringement is arguably a violation of the Second Amendment. Therefore no state or federal government, because we now have it incorporated to the states through the McDonald case, through the 14th Amendment, like many of our other constitutional rights. No state or federal law should infringe on our gun rights. Yet we’re knee deep in battles over various gun laws that are utterly passed with contempt of the Second Amendment, and then we have to go through these fights over it. Teddy Nappen 19:09 Yeah, and it’s definitely. I noticed that whenever it comes to New Jersey, I mean, I know people always talk about state powers, how they, you know, always leave it to the states. However, there are some things that there’s just so much abuse by the states that what they do, I mean, just right now, what they are doing right now is disgusting. Where they’re just harassing these dealers, going after them, wasting the taxpayers dollars. And it’s the level of where, all right, the federal government needs to step in, and I can see everyone’s like, “Oh, don’t allow the feds to get in, but here is the truth. They abuse it so much that there’s just no, there’s no value. Evan Nappen 19:54 Well, frankly, if we simply made the federal law, as it stands right now, as the preemptive. Just passed a law saying federal law preempts state law. Then every state gun law would become mooted out. Done. Invalid. Because only the federal law would apply. And currently under federal law there are no prohibitions on carry. There’s no addressing that in a negative way. Now, they might say, because the federal law doesn’t address it at all, then the states could still try to regulate carry. But then we still have the constitutional Second Amendment with the Bruen decision and such regarding carry. Then if we look at how the impact would be beyond that, well, everything else that these states try to pass, particularly on sale, possession, or on any of that, it would all be preemptively null and void by way of a federal law that they first engineered to just be a minimum to suddenly become the maximum. And that would concentrate our efforts only to having essentially federal fights, which would be pretty good, because instead of the pro-gun movement, those that defend our gun rights, and instead of having them fighting in every jurisdiction, everywhere, every state or county or town that passes some anti-Second Amendment gun rights law that we have to go in and challenge, we would have a preemptive federal law. So, every battle would simply be taking place, for the most part, at the federal law level of preemption, and it would basically gut that entire expenditure of the battle that we constantly have to foot the bill and pay for. It would be an interesting thing to conceptualize, to finally have a federal full preemption. I think it’s workable. Teddy Nappen 22:18 Yeah, and look, I never thought we’d ever see, like, the tax stamp removed for suppressors, and having a chance for it to be removed from the NFA, so anything is possible. We just need to get the right people in, and the right amount of votes. Evan Nappen 22:30 Yeah, it might, it might actually be, but then you’ll have even pro-Second Amendment folks, say, oh, states rights, states’ rights, you know. And they become so focused on so-called states’ rights that we still are losing our rights, because, as you say, Teddy, there’s an abuse by the states of our rights, and Page – 8 – of 14 this could end that abuse. So, when you have an abuse of state power, then the federal government really should come in to stop the abuse by the states. Teddy Nappen 22:53 I think it was in New York, and this might have been years ago. Do you remember they posted the map of who owned firearms? Evan Nappen 23:15 Yeah, it was New York, yeah, right. And then the public record, and then you could, it was searchable when you could find the gun owners. Teddy Nappen 23:25 Of course, a lot of them got robbed and harassed, and everything in that, which is just like, all right, fine. And you know what? When is it going to be enough for states’ powers? When they say everyone wears a yellow armband? It’s a picture of an AR, like states power, states rights. It’s such BS for allowing the abuse that comes down from New Jersey. Where you have the gulag that is the symbol of oppression of a totalitarian regime, and it just pisses me off so much when I hear that argument. I hear the people that make perfect the enemy of good, every time. How long did it take us to lose our rights to these people? Decades. And that’s what it’s going to take to get them back. It’s just disgusting. Evan Nappen 24:12 It is. But we’re in the fight, and we have to keep this fight on. Politically, the big picture is critical in our ability to win and get these changes. As much as all this is aggravating, if you step back, man, I can step back and look from having been practicing gun law for over 40 years. I can look and say we have come a long way. We’ve come a long way. The fact that we can finally have a carry permit in New Jersey is astounding. It’s astounding that we got to that, because that was something that seemed like an impossibility, and yet it got achieved. You can see amazing other advances. Evan Nappen 25:07 Hopefully, shortly, we will see the Supreme Court take a hardware case. We need them to take a hardware case. What I’m talking about is so-called assault firearms or assault weapons, magazines, where there is hardware that’s been banned. Where the constitutionality of the ability to ban hardware finally gets established out of the Supreme Court to end it, to stop it. That’s something that we’ve got to get to, and I think we’re going to see that soon. It is coming. There are so many cases, and they’ve been going up the chain. I think we’re going to see it. I don’t know if it’ll be, you know, this session. We’re getting close, and that’s what we saw, the prediction by even the U.S. Attorney General. The U.S. Attorney General saying they believe that ARs and others, Supreme Court will eventually pronounce they are legal. Teddy Nappen 26:16 I know there’s like, I know there’s rumors, everyone, about the different justices retiring. Imagine if Justice Thomas’s retirement, his last decision that he does, is he legalized and ends the assault firearm bans across the country. Page – 9 – of 14 Evan Nappen 26:31 Oh, that’d be just wonderful. I’d like to see St. Thomas. Teddy Nappen 26:36 Yeah. You know they did the commemorative, like Heller, like revolver, I remember that they. Evan Nappen 26:43 Which I have, I have a commemorative Heller Smith & Wesson .38. Not only was it commemorative and put out by Smith when the Heller decision came down, so it’s actually a Smith & Wesson bonafide commemorative, but I have that, I think I showed it to you, Teddy, it’s signed personally by Dick Heller, who’s a friend. So, I have a signed commemorative of the Heller decision, signed by Dick Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 27:10 Well, the next one I want it to be just, it’ll say the name of the case, and it’s just the Clarence Thomas smile that you see. The GIF area Thomas commemorative AR. Evan Nappen 27:23 And then, of course, the Left would complain that it’s racist because it’s a black rifle. No. You can’t be racist against Thomas, right? I mean, they always talk. Teddy Nappen 27:37 No, no, they say you can, because they say that he’s not black enough. If you know his entire history, the like, his, you could not, you could not live as a like a black American, like his entire thing, like inner city kid, like I think he was a single, like single mom, they like raised, like literally did the like live the entire black experience like it would be a lifetime movie. It would be amazing. Evan Nappen 28:05 He is an amazing man with actually the embodiment of the American dream, in effect. Coming from an absolutely underprivileged, you know, situation where he rose to be one of the greatest Supreme, one of the greatest, for sure, Supreme Court justices. His amazing story about an amazing man. Just great. And they don’t, because just like with gerrymandering, where there are plenty of Republican minority reps out there, it’s not racism at all. It’s the Democrat power grab, and because Judge Thomas is conservative, they refuse to acknowledge the benefit of having such a great man. Teddy Nappen 29:03 Yeah. And he is what Joe Biden would describe as articulate, bright, and clean. Evan Nappen 29:09 Oh G-d. Teddy Nappen 29:13 I love how Biden said that to Obama. I know. Page – 10 – of 14 Evan Nappen 29:16 I mean. He would constantly say these things. And yet they will extrapolate 10 times out to try to paint Trump as racist when Biden was. He bona fide said stuff that was absolutely insane with racism. Stereotypical racism. Teddy Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Evan Nappen 29:45 Yeah, really. I mean, just come on. Insulting and amazing. Well, and let me tell you, Teddy, about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range. You and I have shot there, and you love WeShoot, don’t you, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 30:04 I had a great time. Evan Nappen 30:05 We always do, every time. We got our certifications there for our carries, and you can do the same. They’ve got a great pro shop, great trainers, great facility, and it’s really conveniently right off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. Lakewood, New Jersey. You want to check out the WeShoot website at weshootusa.com. And you should make sure you get on their email list, because WeShoot sends out a lot of great stuff via email. All their great deals and specials and cool events they’re doing and all kinds of fun things. WeShoot is extremely dynamic, and they are always doing something. WeShoot is just super fun. So, if you’re looking for a great range to belong to, a great place to shoot, a great place to hone your skills, get your training, you cannot do any better than WeShoot in Lakewood. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 31:18 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It is a book used by, well, everybody. If you want to understand New Jersey gun law, you need my book, which is not surprisingly titled New Jersey Gun Law. You can get your copy at EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. When you get the book, you’ll see it is very large. It is over 500 pages. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. And the greatest thing about my book is that the book itself can be used as a weapon. It’s that big. I’m not advising you to do that, but should you need to, yes, that is a book you don’t want to get hit in the head with. So, check out New Jersey Gun Law at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, I bet you have something else up your sleeve to tell us. Teddy Nappen 32:18 Well, one of the things that did come up, and I just thought, what the heck? This is in the feed of the New York Times. Where are all the AK 47s? Like, where have all the AK 47s gone? I know. Evan Nappen 32:19 I don’t know. Where have they gone? Page – 11 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 32:21 I know. It was a very interesting article, but it was also very strange. Just reading through, I don’t know if you ever heard of Jim Fuller? Evan Nappen 32:47 The Fuller Brush Man? Teddy Nappen 32:49 Apparently, he’s a gunsmith. He makes custom AKs. I’m not too familiar on that, but he was going into details of, like, and they were talking about the collapse of the AK market. Evan Nappen 33:01 Well, there is a downturn, but prices aren’t collapsing. Teddy Nappen 33:06 Yeah, I mean, how much are you going for? Evan Nappen 33:08 One of the Russian AKs going. You know the problem is, what led to the big boom, of course, was when we were importing AKs. We could have them from China and Russia. Although we were getting really cheap ammo, and there was so much of the surplus ammo, the 762 by 39 that it became extremely popular, because you could so reasonably shoot. Then it became so overwhelmingly possible that even American-made guns, like the Ruger Mini 30, for example, were being made in 762 by 39. Then you also had the influx of very reasonable SKSs. I mean, I remember when SKSs were under $100, for an SKS, and then you know the reasonable AKs and all that coming in with cheap ammo. Man, it was great. Then they started to ban the import, the ban of Chinese, ban of Russian, and the cheap ammo dried up. The guns that were coming in, the imports like those were dried up. Teddy Nappen 33:56 Apparently, it was in 1989 under Bush, because the shooter used the Chinese AK. Evan Nappen 34:32 Please remember, it was Bush. It was Bush, the Republican, the neocon, and this is one of the things that you got to always remember. Even though they may have the “R” there, they’re not necessarily a friend of the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 34:47 Yeah. And then the article tries to highlight more of like 2014 where the annexation of Crimea, the U.S. put sanctions on Russia. So, there goes all the Russian AKs. Evan Nappen 34:57 Well, not just Russian AKs. I mean, we were getting a lot of great guns, really cool guns from Russia, you know. We’re getting SKSs – originals, beautiful guns. I mean, phenomenal. Russian SKSs are probably the best SKS ever made, machined, gorgeous. Mosin-Nagant rifles, right? They were very Page – 12 – of 14 reasonable, and you know, you want to do the enemy at the gates, man. You got your gun and super strong, tough rifles. You know, a lot of great stuff could come in, and now we don’t see it anymore. And prices have skyrocketed. I mean, if you look at SKS prices today, holy crap. You’d be lucky to find a Chinese SKS that you used to be able to buy for less than $100, one in great shape today for 600 bucks, you know? I mean, easily 600, some even more. I’ve seen Russian SKSs pushing $2,000 a piece at the gun show. I mean, the prices are just unbelievable, because the market has a limitation now to the quantity that’s out there. And by the way, there’s probably only a 10th of the amount of Russian SKSs compared to Chinese SKSs. Even with that, the prices are way up there, and one of the reasons is that the SKSs, for example, are excellent functioning rifles. They’re handy. They function great and are very popular. Evan Nappen 36:36 With AKs, you know, there was that whole growth of it, and we were able to have all that great, cheap ammo. Once you got into an introductory, reasonable AK, then you wanted to up your game with other AKs, and all that. But what’s happened is, with the close out of that, we’ve become more, much, much more AR focused. The AR-15 platform, and everything about it. That’s all, a lot of it is U.S. made, and kind of America’s rifle. I would have to say today that America’s rifle, without a doubt, is the AR-15. Teddy Nappen 37:17 I would also say there’s also just the customization, and I think modularity. Evan Nappen 37:23 Its modularity seems to appeal to a lot of gun folks, because you can add and change and put all kinds of whistles and bells. Teddy Nappen 37:32 That also goes to the tone of American culture versus like the Eastern Bloc of the AK 47. We’re very individualistic, where we will make it so it is something that works for us, versus, you know, the AK 47 is designed, it is designed in that shape or form. You can do some small mods, but generally speaking, you pick up an AK 47 it’s, you know, hold it up to another one, like that’s the level of it. Evan Nappen 37:58 That’s an interesting point, Teddy, about how in those countries they don’t. It’s hard to find a Bubba AK in countries where they make the AKs, isn’t it? They don’t Bubbafi much, do they? But we love to modify, change, and customize, and that’s actually a lot of the fun of it. Let’s face it, it’s fun. It’s fun to add the accessories to fit your needs, make it look cooler, make it function better, make it more appropriate for whatever your needs may be. But then again, the anti-gun rights crowd will suddenly take any given feature and demonize certain features. So, if they are intrinsically evil, that if for some reason you have a telescoping stock on your AR or any other semi-auto, because your stock moves one or two inches back and forth, somehow that is such a huge impact on crime. Teddy Nappen 39:09 Or has a barrel shroud, which they can’t define. Page – 13 – of 14 Evan Nappen 39:12 Oh yeah, well, they try to. Remember. Teddy Nappen 39:15 The shoulder thingy that goes up, you know, the seat belt. Evan Nappen 39:18 The shoulder thingy that goes up is a barrel shroud. Isn’t that interesting? These are the experts that are voting for these laws. They have no clue what they’re even voting for, nor do they care. As long as it’s going against gun owners, they’re for it. They don’t care what it is. Teddy Nappen 39:39 Yeah, and I will say, just from the article, like, they try to, of course, they try to say, oh, Trump’s tariffs is what killed the AK market. There’s like also going from Russia, Ukraine, which they tried to say, you, oh, Poland is one of the key suppliers of Ukraine. No, the United States is one of the key suppliers of military to Ukraine. We’ve, you know, what is it, 40 billion, 80 billion, like crazy amounts, like they’re just still in that. And then again, tariffs are non-inflationary. We’ve known that, we’ve proven it. And I love how they try to say, well, we could get more AKs if we removed tariffs on Poland. Evan Nappen 40:21 Well, you know, it’s pretty bad when the Left media is trying to lure removal of tariffs by saying we could get more AKs in the country. That’s a pretty interesting stretch for them. Teddy Nappen 40:34 I know why they’re doing it. They’re trying to turn gun owners. They’re trying their best to turn gun owners into the debt, which is a ridiculous concept. They’ve demonized them, called them racist, call them everything under the sun. So, good luck trying to convince a gun owner to be considered a Democrat. If they are voting Democrat, you’re voting for your own destruction. I’m sorry. Evan Nappen 40:54 And speaking of destruction of gun owners, that is what GOFUs are. GOFU is our Gun Owner Fuck Ups. Every show we like to highlight the GOFU of the week, and this week’s GOFU is something that is constantly coming my way in the practice of law. And some of you listeners may say, yeah, it’s obvious, but I still have to say it because I keep getting case after case after case. It’s real simple, folks. You need to know your state’s gun laws. Most people understand that they need to know their state’s gun laws, but it doesn’t end there. If you travel out of state, you need to know the state’s gun laws that you’re traveling to. I constantly get cases of individuals that come from other states and end up being criminally charged in New Jersey because New Jersey’s gun laws are nothing like the gun laws of the state they were traveling from. The reverse is true, my friends. The reverse is true. Evan Nappen 42:13 You may have a New Jersey carry permit, but you need to know, if you don’t know, that no other state in America is recognized by New Jersey. No other state’s gun license is recognized by New Jersey. New Jersey has no reciprocity per se. When you travel, there are states where you can carry, because Page – 14 – of 14 despite New Jersey not recognizing their carry license, they’re willing to recognize any lawfully issued state carry. Many of the states, over 70% of the land mass in America, is constitutional carry, where as long as you’re law-abiding, you can carry even without a permit. But you still have to know, because I get calls from New Jersey folks that are getting jammed up in other states, making the mistake that others frequently make coming into New Jersey. Evan Nappen 43:24 So, the GOFU is real simple. Know the gun laws. Know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you are residing in, and know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you may be traveling in. It’s critical! I see it every day as a classic of virtually all GOFUs. This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3 44:05 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E291_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Handel on the Law. Marginal Legal Advice.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is the ninth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution. This month, Roman and Elizabeth discuss Article VI and VII, which include some odds and ends like the Debts Clause, the No Religious Test Clause, and the process for ratification. But tucked into Article VI is the all-important Supremacy Clause, which states that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land,” and is probably the most frequently used constitutional law in practice. Roman and Elizabeth are also joined by Dr. Alondra Nelson, a leading expert on AI. She discusses why AI is a challenge to regulate, what to think of the tug of war between the states and the federal government on the topic, and whether she's optimistic governments will figure this out. The 99% Invisible Breakdown of the Constitution Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Morning Xtra with Tug and Los delivers conservative talk on the biggest political, cultural, and news stories of the day. Smart analysis, unapologetic opinions, and real conversations every weekday morning. Every weekday from 6a to 10a! First thing to know: Do Democrats follow a pattern? Virginia is forgetting about a little thing called the Supremacy Clause Elizabeth Warren’s kind of man Atlanta's ONLY All Conservative News & Talk Station.: https://www.xtra1063.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Michael dives into the world of state exit taxes, where California, New York, and Washington are proposing to tax residents who leave their states. He explores the historical context of the right to travel, citing the Supreme Court's 1868 decision in Crandell v. Nevada, which struck down a tax on citizens leaving the state. Michael argues that these modern-day exit taxes are the equivalent of the Berlin Wall, designed to keep people from leaving, and discusses the constitutional implications of taxing wealth, including the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you've ever wondered who holds the real power in criminal cases, federal authorities or state courts, this episode is for you.Welcome to Lawyer Talk! In this episode, I dig into the age-old debate of federal versus state law, joined by Troy Henricksen, a sharp law student who's not afraid to challenge the status quo.We kick things off with a real case where police violated Miranda rights during a custodial interrogation—and we ask the tough question: if someone gives their DNA during an illegal interrogation, can that evidence still be used in court?Together, Troy and I discuss the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine and examine major Supreme Court cases to see how physical evidence is treated differently from statements.I explain how Ohio's constitution sometimes offers protections that go beyond what federal law guarantees, and why it's critical for lawyers to know their state's specific rules.We get into the nitty-gritty of the Supremacy Clause, what counts as valid consent, and why reading Miranda rights—or just getting a warrant—could save everyone a lot of trouble.3 Key Takeaways:State Constitutions Can Set Higher Standards: While the federal constitution sets the minimum standard, states can offer more rights and protections, not fewer. Ohio, for example, allows suppression of physical evidence (like DNA) if obtained during an interrogation in violation of Miranda, even when federal law might not (Steve Palmer explains this difference).Supremacy Clause Doesn't Always Mean “Federal Wins”: The Supremacy Clause means states can't do less than the federal minimum, but they're free to offer greater protection to defendants (Steve Palmer, Troy Henricksen). This is why it's crucial to check your state constitution, not just federal law.Thorough Lawyering Pays Off: Many lawyers overlook state constitutional protections, but careful research can make a huge difference in tough cases. As Steve Palmer notes, always check state law for potentially stronger rights.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

This Day in Legal History: Missouri v. HollandOn March 18, 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Missouri v. Holland, clarifying the scope of federal treaty power. The case arose when the state of Missouri challenged a federal statute that implemented a treaty between the United States and Great Britain to protect migratory birds. Missouri argued that the regulation of wildlife fell within the state's reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. The state maintained that the federal government could not use a treaty to expand its authority into areas traditionally controlled by the states.The Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the federal law. Writing for the Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.emphasized that the Constitution grants the federal government the power to make treaties, and that these treaties can address matters of national and international concern. He reasoned that migratory birds, by their nature, cross state and national boundaries, making them an appropriate subject for international agreement. The Court concluded that when a treaty is validly made, Congress may pass laws necessary to implement it, even if those laws regulate areas otherwise left to the states.This decision reinforced the supremacy of federal treaties over conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. It also signaled a broader understanding of federal power in foreign affairs, particularly when international cooperation is required. The ruling has had lasting implications for the balance between state and federal authority, especially in cases involving environmental regulation and international commitments.A California federal jury is weighing whether Elon Musk committed securities fraud through his public statements about Twitter during his 2022 acquisition attempt. Investors claim Musk deliberately made misleading statements about the level of spam and fake accounts to drive down Twitter's stock price after agreeing to buy the company. According to their lawyers, these statements were part of a calculated plan to gain leverage to renegotiate or exit the $44 billion deal. They argue Musk had no evidence for his claims and point to internal communications suggesting he was already considering a lower price. The investors also emphasize that Musk had waived due diligence rights, making his public claim that the deal was “on hold” misleading.Musk's legal team counters that there is no proof of fraud and that expressing concerns about bots does not amount to illegal conduct. They argue Musk genuinely believed Twitter's spam numbers were inaccurate and was frustrated by the company's refusal to provide data to verify them. His lawyer also stressed that motive alone is not enough to establish fraudulent intent. Additionally, Musk ultimately declined an opportunity to renegotiate the deal at a lower price, which his attorneys say undermines the claim of a scheme. They also note that Musk reaffirmed his commitment to the deal shortly after his controversial tweet, which they argue is inconsistent with an effort to manipulate the market.The case centers on whether Musk's statements were intentionally deceptive or simply careless. Investors allege they suffered losses after Twitter's stock dropped following Musk's tweets. The jury must now decide whether his conduct meets the legal standard for securities fraud.Were Musk's Tweets ‘Deliberate' Or ‘Stupid'? Jury To Decide - Law360The Trump administration is defending the Pentagon's decision to blacklist Anthropic in a federal court dispute, arguing the move was lawful and tied to national security concerns. The designation, made by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, labeled the company a supply chain risk after it refused to remove safeguards limiting the use of its AI for autonomous weapons or domestic surveillance.Government lawyers claim Anthropic is unlikely to succeed in its lawsuit, rejecting the company's argument that the action violated its First Amendment rights. They argue the dispute is about conduct—specifically contract and policy disagreements—not protected speech. According to the administration, no restrictions were placed on Anthropic's ability to express its views, only on its eligibility for government contracts.Anthropic has challenged the designation in court, calling it unlawful and harmful to its business, and is seeking to block the decision while the case proceeds. The company maintains that its safety restrictions reflect responsible AI practices and do not threaten national security. It also argues that the government failed to follow proper procedures and violated its due process rights.The blacklisting, supported by Donald Trump, could limit Anthropic's access to defense contracts and potentially lead to significant financial losses. The dispute follows failed negotiations between the company and the Pentagon over acceptable uses of its technology. Anthropic is pursuing a separate legal challenge in another court to contest a broader designation that could expand the ban across the federal government.Trump administration defends Anthropic blacklisting in US court | ReutersThe Lycra Company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Texas as part of a plan to reduce about $1.2 billion in debt and transfer ownership to its senior lenders. A bankruptcy judge granted interim approval for the company to access $50 million in debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, rejecting objections from a lower-level creditor who argued the lenders had too much control over the restructuring.The company entered bankruptcy with roughly $1.5 billion in total debt and a prearranged plan supported by most major lenders, who have agreed to vote in favor of the restructuring. The plan gives Lycra 45 days to confirm its reorganization and would convert different layers of debt into equity or warrants in the reorganized company.One creditor, Castleknight Master Fund, objected, claiming the same lenders were playing multiple roles—DIP financiers, major creditors, and future owners—giving them an unfair advantage. The court, however, found this overlap common in large restructurings and allowed the financing to proceed, noting objections can be raised again later.Lycra's financial struggles stem from declining earnings, increased competition, inflation, and prior debt tied to earlier ownership changes. The company has also faced legal risks related to past transactions. Despite these issues, Lycra continues to operate globally, selling its products in more than 80 countries.Spandex Maker Lycra Files Ch. 11 To Slash $1.2B Debt - Law360 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

Bards, Rise! with host Michael Deem The Legal Siege of Bard's Rise: Federal Land Patents and the Reality of Eviction Bard's Rise: The Homesteading Saga Episode Analysis: Legal Battles, Federal Land Patents, and the Reality of Eviction (March 5, 2026) "It's a paper war. A war on who can write the best papers... but the system feels rigged against those without an attorney." — Leah & Mike, on their Pro Se legal battle Core Legal Arguments Federal Land Patent vs. Sovereign Citizen Explicitly distancing from the "Sovereign Citizen" movement to maintain legal credibility in federal court. Irreparable Harm Eviction from "Unique Property" (a custom-built 20-year home and a 60k sq ft community center) cannot be remedied by money. Procedural Failure Magistrate judge effectively denied the TRO by scheduling hearings after the eviction dates. Key Context #LandPatent #PropertyRights #ProSe #Eviction #FederalCourt Case Status Home Eviction:Completed (Mar 3) Business Eviction:In Progress Active Case 1:26-cv-163 (Choice One) Active Case 2:26-cv-449 (vs. Michigan) Appeal:6th Circuit Pending Human Impact 3 of 4 children raised in the home. Mike built the house personally 21 years ago. Massive loss of equipment and inventory (siding, tools, coffee shop gear) due to storage constraints. Host: Michael Dean | Guests: Mike & Leah Est. Reading Time: 4 mins | Length: 36:52 Introduction This episode of Bard's Rise features host Michael Dean and guests Mike and Leah as they recount the harrowing experience of being evicted from their long-term family home and business properties. The discussion centers on the legal distinction of federal land patents, the systemic challenges faced by pro se litigants, and the emotional toll of a "paper war" against institutional banking and state interests. 1. Defining the Legal Identity: Federal Land Patents vs. Sovereign Citizens A critical portion of the discussion is dedicated to clarifying the legal framework Mike and Leah are utilizing. Host Michael Dean explicitly distances their movement from "sovereign citizens," a term often used by opposing counsel to discredit litigants. Instead, they identify strictly as federal land patent holders. While the term "allodial title" was previously used by AI-generated summaries of the show, Dean clarifies that they acknowledge state regulation and are not claiming to be above the law but rather seeking to invoke specific rights granted under federal land patents. The guests emphasize that they have never identified as sovereign citizens and believe such labels are tactical attempts by the opposition to prejudice the court. Legal Framework Comparison Position Description Sovereign Citizen Often associated with total immunity from taxes/laws; rejected by the guests. Land Patent Holder Reliance on federal land grants and constitutional supremacy; subject to state law. Note: The defense relies on the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution to argue that federal land patents supersede state court eviction orders. 2. The Physical and Emotional Toll of Eviction The narrative shifts to the recent evictions of Mike and Leah from two distinct properties: their custom-built family home and a massive community center. On March 3rd, the family was forced to vacate the home they built 20 years ago and where they raised their four children. Due to the speed of the eviction and a lack of storage, they were forced to abandon significant personal property, including heavy furniture and full kitchen cupboards. The second eviction involved a 60,000 to 70,000 square foot building that served as a hub for three family businesses: a construction company, a coffee shop, and a community center. Despite having a crew of 15 people helping, the sheer volume of equipment and inventory—including commercial kitchen appliances and 80 squares of siding—meant that more was left behind and likely destroyed than was successfully moved. 3. The "Paper War" and Systemic Hurdles Michael Dean criticizes the legal system's handling of the case, specifically the magistrate judge's failure to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. He argues that "irreparable harm" was clearly established because the properties are unique—one being a former middle school and the other a custom-built home. The guests express frustration with the "rigged" nature of the system, noting that while they cite dozens of cases in their filings, the opposing banks provide minimal citations yet receive favorable treatment. Furthermore, they highlight a lack of professional courtesy from the court, claiming that their phone calls as pro se litigants go unreturned. Active Legal Cases Case 1 26cv163 vs. Choice One Bank Case 2 26cv449 Dalton v. Michigan Required for Injunction: 1. Likelihood of success on merits. 2. Irreparable harm (Unique Property). Key Data Property Size: The community center/business building is estimated between 60,000 and 70,000 square feet. Duration of Residency: The family lived in and owned their home for over 20 years (since 2005). Litigation Success Rate: Mike cites a statistic that only 12% of pro se cases typically win in court. Timeline: The current federal legal battle began around January 15th, leading up to the March 3rd eviction. To-Do Michael Dean will post the First Amended Complaint, Motion to Dismiss, and Opposition Brief for the Choice One Bank case on the show page once BBS creates it. The legal team will file the bank's reply brief on the show page as soon as it is submitted. A complaint will be filed against the State of Michigan in case 26cv449, with the court to determine the specific individual defendants. Listeners are encouraged to open a PACER account to monitor the filings for cases 26cv163 and 26cv449. The host and guests plan to provide a more positive update in the coming weeks as the case moves to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Conclusion Despite the "doom and gloom" of the recent evictions, the participants remain committed to their legal strategy. Michael Dean likens the struggle to a long-term war that must be won "one bite at a time," asserting that this case will eventually be recognized as a landmark civil rights and property fight in American history.

On this episode, Dale and Kurt discuss the latest narratives against voter ID as the SAVE Act makes it through the House. Plus, Super Bowl winners and losers (with competing halftime shows), losing revenue from the earnings tax on sports teams, an explanation of the "Anti-Commandeering Loophole" of the Supremacy Clause, ICE director under fire on Capitol Hill, and we mourn the loss of two people in our media family.Make sure to like, comment, subscribe, and share Dale Carter's America with your friends! Follow us on Facebook and Instagram and join in on the conversation. Thanks for tuning in to Dale Carter's America!

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is the most misunderstood language in the document. I'll explain why.https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for February 6, 2026. 0:30 We rip into the growing entitlement mindset among powerful politicians, zeroing in on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s executive order targeting ICE and comparing it to high-profile defiance from leaders like Gavin Newsom. Power corrupts, empathy erodes, and accountability disappears when elected officials start believing they deserve authority rather than serve at the will of the people. From sanctuary city policies and federal vs. local law to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, this political theater isn’t just unconstitutional — it’s dangerous, distracting, and could cost lives. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. One of the terrorists involved in the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was finally arrested today. Zubayr Al-Bakoush was arrested and extradited to the US, landing at Andrews Air Force base early Friday morning. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals voided a lower courts ruling that blocked President Trump's anti-DEI orders. Republican Congressman Mark Amodei announced he's retiring from Congress and won't seek another term in office. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 We break down a Department of Justice investigation into Georgia state legislators accused of COVID unemployment fraud and the clear pattern of corruption among Democratic lawmakers. We focus on three Georgia Democrats caught stealing thousands in pandemic unemployment benefits while fully employed and earning steady incomes — money meant for families who couldn’t pay rent or buy groceries during lockdowns. This wasn’t confusion or paperwork errors, but deliberate fraud, and Georgia is just one example of a nationwide problem of political abuse of COVID relief funds. 16:00 We ask American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson if they are going to see “Melania,” the new documentary about First Lady Melania Trump. We dive into why the film — which follows the days leading up to Donald Trump’s second inauguration — has shattered box office expectations, becoming the top-grossing non-musical documentary of the past decade. From Melania’s privacy, intelligence, and fashion choices to her mystique, media treatment, and contrast with other First Ladies, the conversation explores why so many viewers are curious about the woman the press rarely portrays. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 We highlight a surprising admission from CNN data analyst Harry Enten: the MAGA movement isn’t going anywhere, even after Donald Trump leaves the White House. We break down why Make America Great Again was never just a slogan or a single candidate, but a long-building response to political elites, big government, and a ruling class disconnected from everyday Americans. Tracing a clear line from Ross Perot to the Tea Party to MAGA, this movement endures because it taps into core American values like national sovereignty, economic fairness, and representation over management. A blunt discussion on why MAGA outlives Trump — and why the American idea behind it can’t be canceled, mocked, or erased. 26:00 We Dig Deep into the media narrative surrounding Melania and why critics insist on calling a flop — despite the numbers saying the exact opposite. With over $7 million in its opening weekend, a top-three box office finish, and now surpassing $10 million in total gross, the film has become the highest-grossing documentary opening of the past decade. Compare the objective box office data with the open media hostility with headlines from major outlets that dismiss the film while ignoring the facts. We also highlight the stunning gap on Rotten Tomatoes — 8% approval from professional critics versus a 99% audience score — proof of a growing disconnect between legacy media and everyday viewers. 32:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 We react to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Queens town hall, where the congresswoman crossed a dangerous line — training activists on how to obstruct federal agents and dox law enforcement, while openly bragging about voting against funding the Department of Homeland Security. We question wheter AOC’s actions amount to encouraging illegal activity, raising serious concerns about aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and respect for the rule of law. But here's the core issue: you don’t get to ignore laws you don’t like, even if you’re a member of Congress. 35:00 Plus, it's Fake News Friday! We're putting you to the test with our weekly game of headlines—are they real news, fake news, or really fake news? From left-wing activists setting up their own “border patrols" to ICE headlines, Olympic Committee absurdity, witchcraft at GOP meetings, voter ID chaos, and Babylon Bee satire coming true, can you spot the fake news? Play along, keep score, and share your results with us on Facebook page: facebook.com/AmericanGroundRadio. 39:30 We take aim at Billie Eilish’s “no one is illegal on stolen land” comment, pointing out the irony after the Tongva Tribe publicly noted that her $3 million mansion sits on their ancestral land. We unpack the logical fallout of the “stolen land” argument, questioning where it ends and what it means for property rights, immigration debates, and the rule of law. 41:00 And we finish off with a record-breaking journey that will make you say, "Whoa! " Articles Benghazi attack suspect caught, extradited to US: DOJ 4th Circuit panel vacates injunction against Trump's anti-DEI orders Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do federal officials have “absolute immunity” from state criminal law? No. But they do have a powerful defense described as the Supremacy Clause immunity.  This legal doctrine can block a state prosecution when a federal officer was acting within lawful federal duties and used only what was necessary and proper. See Lawfare for more details.In this episode, former prosecutor Arthur Busch breaks down the real test courts apply, how cases can be removed from state court to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, and what facts tend to decide these cases in practice. And one point that gets misstated constantly: a presidential pardon does not reach state crimes—so it cannot wipe out a state conviction. The Mitten Channel is a network of podcasts.  

Medicare and Medicaid fraud. California healthcare corruption. Constitutional crisis. California is now being called the epicenter of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, with billions of taxpayer dollars allegedly lost to fake patients, phantom billing, and sham hospice operations. In this full podcast episode, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services explains why Los Angeles has become ground zero for healthcare fraud and how these schemes drain public healthcare programs meant to serve real patients. Dr. Oz alleges that organized fraud networks are exploiting Medicare and Medicaid at massive scale. Gavin Newsom denies the claims, accusing Oz of exaggeration and discrimination — escalating the conflict into a political and legal firestorm. This episode then turns to a second crisis: federal law vs state and city governments. Across blue cities, police departments are ordered to monitor and film ICE agents, federal officers are barred from city property, and taxpayer funds are used to oppose federal immigration enforcement. Is this lawful protest — or obstruction of federal authority? Constitutional attorney Josh Hammer breaks down:     •    The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution     •    When state resistance becomes unconstitutional     •    The legal implications of **Don Lemon arrest     •    What legal remedies exist to restore order without destabilizing the country This episode covers Medicare fraud, Medicaid abuse, California corruption, federal vs state power, ICE enforcement, constitutional law, and government overreach — with facts, legal analysis, and real consequences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Monkey SelfieOn January 28, 2016, a federal judge in California dismissed a highly publicized copyright lawsuit that sought to establish whether a monkey could own intellectual property rights. The case stemmed from a 2011 incident in which a crested macaque named Naruto allegedly took a series of selfies using wildlife photographer David Slater's unattended camera in Indonesia. The resulting images, particularly a striking self-portrait of the grinning primate, went viral and sparked widespread debate over authorship and ownership. In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto's behalf, asserting that the monkey was the true author and copyright holder of the images under the Copyright Act.The case presented novel legal questions about the boundaries of authorship and whether non-human animals have standing to sue in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that animals do not have statutory standing under the Copyright Act, which applies only to human authors. In his opinion, Orrick emphasized that Congress had not intended to grant copyright rights to animals, and that extending such rights would require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.The ruling did not settle the matter completely, as PETA appealed the decision. However, in 2018, PETA and Slater reached a settlement in which Slater agreed to donate a portion of any future revenue from the photos to organizations protecting macaques and their habitats. The case sparked lasting discussion about animal rights, legal personhood, and the reach of copyright law in the digital age. It also underscored how existing legal frameworks may be ill-equipped to address emerging questions posed by technology and non-human agency.Several Democratic-led U.S. states are advancing legislation to allow individuals to sue federal immigration agents in state courts for alleged civil rights violations. This movement gained momentum after two fatal ICE encounters in Minneapolis and broader concerns over enforcement tactics under President Trump's immigration policies. Illinois recently became the first state to pass such a law, but the Trump administration quickly filed a legal challenge, citing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. Other states, including California, New York, and Virginia, are considering similar measures.Supporters argue these laws would close an accountability gap, as federal agents—unlike state or local officials—are largely shielded from individual civil rights lawsuits. While Section 1983 of the U.S. Code allows such suits against state actors in federal court, no equivalent exists for federal officers. The Federal Tort Claims Act permits some claims against the U.S. government but not against agents personally, and it involves complex procedures. Legal experts say these state efforts could spark a major shift in the legal landscape, potentially giving courts a framework to hold federal agents accountable for constitutional violations.The Department of Homeland Security has defended ICE's actions and criticized the state proposals. Critics, including legal scholars, warn that parts of the Illinois law—such as those allowing punitive damages—may be unconstitutional. However, others maintain that the core idea of state-level accountability for federal misconduct is both lawful and necessary.US state lawmakers push to allow lawsuits against ICE agents | ReutersA Virginia judge blocked an attempt by state Democrats to advance a constitutional amendment that would have allowed them to redraw the state's congressional map in their favor. Judge Jack Hurley, Jr. ruled that the process used to introduce the amendment was procedurally invalid and came too close to the state's 2025 election. The decision halts a strategy that could have given Democrats control of up to 10 of Virginia's 11 U.S. House seats, up from the six they currently hold.Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Don Scott, have pledged to appeal the ruling. The blocked amendment was intended to be put before voters in a special election this spring, with a new electoral map released ahead of time for public consideration. With control of the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives at stake in the upcoming midterms, the decision is a significant setback for Democrats, who need only flip three seats to gain a majority.The dispute is part of a broader national struggle over redistricting, with both parties pursuing aggressive map-drawing strategies in various states. Last year, Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw maps targeting Democratic incumbents, prompting Democratic-led states like California to follow suit in kind.Judge blocks Virginia lawmakers' bid for pro-Democratic voting map | ReutersTop lawyers at U.S. litigation firm Susman Godfrey are now billing up to $4,000 per hour, setting a new high for hourly legal fees in 2026. The rate applies to prominent partners Neal Manne and Bill Carmody, whose hourly fees were already $3,000 last year. While most of their work is done on contingency or flat-fee arrangements, this hourly benchmark reflects growing price trends across elite law firms. Manne joked that their rate-setting process is as secretive as a papal conclave, and the firm has not disclosed how the figures were determined.Susman Godfrey, based in Houston, is known for high-end litigation on both the plaintiff and defense side and offers above-average compensation, especially to associates. The rise in billing rates is part of a broader trend—major law firms raised their hourly rates by an average of 7% in 2025, according to a report by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law.Other top firms are also pushing rate ceilings. Latham & Watkins reached $3,050 per hour for some partners in federal bankruptcy filings, while leading appellate lawyer Neal Katyal billed $3,250 at Milbank. Quinn Emanuel partners were billing at $3,000 an hour last year, according to court records.As lawyer rates surge, US firm charges $4,000 an hour for top partners | 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

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the differences between the fatal shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and invite Orin Kerr, professor of law at Stanford Law School, to talk about judicial and administrative warrants. The Agenda:–Comparing the two ICE shootings–Supremacy Clause and federal cases–Fourth Amendment rights–Racial gerrymandering in Texas–Answering our favorite listener's question Show Notes:–Supremacy Clause Immunity, Explained Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gregory Bovino faces a demotion amid fallout from the Minneapolis shootings, sparking questions about accountability. Republicans scramble with belated calls for investigations, while Alex breaks down the Supremacy Clause and federal immunity, explaining why prosecuting federal agents is nearly impossible. The episode concludes by examining why Trump might strategically avoid pushing for investigations into these high-profile murders.

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Church Protest Precedence The arrest of an organizer tied to the anti‑ICE church disruption in Minnesota, announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The hosts react to DOJ confirmation that Nekima Levy-Armstrong (identified by Bondi as a key organizer) was arrested for allegedly coordinating an attack on a church service in St. Paul. Clay and Buck emphasize the speed and clarity of the DOJ’s action, praising the Department of Justice for responding quickly with a charge backed by evidence rather than performative outrage. They contrast the arrest with pre‑arrest media appearances in which the organizer claimed the church protest was “peaceful,” arguing that video evidence flatly contradicts that narrative. Hour 1 of the program breaks down the legal foundation for the arrest, including laws protecting religious services from disruption. Buck explains that statutes originally designed to protect churches—historically justified by Democrats as safeguards against extremist interference—are now being enforced against left‑wing activists. Clay and Buck argue this represents an “open‑and‑shut” case where probable cause is clear, while cautioning that conviction still depends on a Minneapolis jury. Black Lives Mattered to Trump Clay points out one of the most underreported accomplishments of Trump’s second term: a historic drop in violent crime nationwide. Citing newly released data, the hosts highlight that the U.S. murder rate has fallen to its lowest level since 1900, with murders down 21% year‑over‑year, the largest single‑year decline ever recorded. They spotlight staggering city‑level declines, including Washington, D.C. and Omaha, both seeing murders drop by roughly 40%, and argue these results reflect a nationwide return to law‑and‑order policies. Clay and Buck stress that these statistics carry particular significance for Black communities, noting that reductions in violent crime overwhelmingly translate into lives saved among populations most affected by homicide. Clay argues that Trump has, by policy outcomes rather than rhetoric, done more to save Black lives than any modern president—an assertion they say stands in direct contradiction to activist narratives that oppose enforcement‑focused policing. FOFO Multiple Minneapolis church protesters have now been arrested, with Attorney General Pam Bondi announcing additional suspects taken into custody. Clay and Buck focus on reports from CBS News and The Daily Wire that a federal judge refused to sign a criminal complaint allowing Don Lemon to be arrested, despite DOJ efforts. The hosts argue this judicial refusal underscores a growing concern about politicization within the courts, especially when contrasted with how aggressively Trump allies were previously prosecuted. They note that, despite early attempts to downplay the incident, Democrats appear to have abandoned public defense of the protesters due to the overwhelmingly negative optics of storming a church service. A core discussion in Hour 2 of the program centers on sanctuary city policies and obstruction of immigration enforcement. Clay and Buck explain that Minneapolis leadership—including Mayor Jacob Frey—has openly refused to cooperate with ICE, even in cases involving violent offenders already in custody. The hosts argue this refusal forces federal agents into more visible enforcement actions and directly fuels unrest, while also potentially violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. They emphasize that refusing to enforce federal law is not passive resistance but deliberate obstruction. Mayor Jacob Frey claims ICE operations exist solely to “terrorize” communities. Buck sharply disputes those claims, arguing the mayor is misrepresenting facts and ignoring his own refusal to cooperate with federal authorities. They contrast Frey’s statements with DOJ actions targeting protesters who openly challenged and taunted federal officials, including one individual who dared Attorney General Bondi to arrest him—only to be taken into custody hours later. Davos Drama Humor and commentary about California Governor Gavin Newsom’s failed Davos appearance, before welcoming Katie Zacharia, a California political and legal analyst, to unpack Newsom’s national ambitions and the state of Democratic politics on the West Coast. Zacharia explains that Newsom traveled to Davos largely to troll President Donald Trump, only to be politically sidelined as Trump advanced what she describes as a historic Greenland and Arctic security agreement. The discussion frames Newsom as the Democrats’ likely 2028 presidential front‑runner, despite what Zacharia characterizes as weak policy substance and declining credibility outside coastal blue states. Clay and Buck examine polling odds showing Newsom far ahead of other Democratic contenders and debate whether his polished media style could translate into national electability against potential Republican nominees such as J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio. Hour 3 of the program also explores California’s deep internal struggles, including speculation around potential successors to Newsom such as Eric Swalwell, whom Zacharia argues is politically and legally unviable due to residency issues and extreme policy rhetoric toward ICE. The conversation expands into California’s broader political decline, including discussions of wealth taxes, billionaire flight to states like Florida, high energy costs, and voter identification laws. Zacharia emphasizes that voter ID reform is the most realistic path for Republicans to regain statewide competitiveness in California, calling it an overwhelmingly popular issue even among Democratic voters. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Senior Editor Anna Bower spoke with Carolyn Shapiro, co-director of Chicago-Kent College of Law's Institute on the Supreme Court, and Bryna Godar, a Staff Attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. The discussion covered the state of Minnesota's jurisdiction to criminally investigate Jonathan Ross, the ICE official who reportedly shot and killed Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7. The conversation also covered obstacles state prosecutors might face in pursuing a potential prosecution and the likelihood that Ross could raise what's known as “Supremacy Clause immunity."Bryna Godar's article on the subject for Slate can be found here. Carolyn Shapiro's Lawfare piece is available here.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for January 15, 2025. 0:30 We kick off today's show with Democrat lawmakers, in multiple states, who are openly pushing bills to block, undermine, and hobble federal ICE agents—despite clear constitutional authority under the Supremacy Clause. This isn’t about legal ambiguity; it’s about defying laws they don’t like and protecting a political agenda. We're laying it out bluntly: these state efforts will fail in court, waste millions in taxpayer dollars, and further embolden lawlessness. Weakening ICE doesn’t help vulnerable communities—it hurts them the most by driving up crime, suppressing wages, and draining resources from American citizens. This is a line in the sand moment. You’re either for the rule of law and law enforcement, or you’re for chaos and ideological nullification of the Constitution. There is no middle ground. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things you Need to Know. President Trump unveiled a new healthcare plan. Vice President JD Vance cast the deciding vote blocking a rebuke of President Trump's Venezuela policies. Another oil tanker leaving Venezuela has been seized by the United States. 12:30 Get Performlyte from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 We don’t hold back as we react to what’s going on in Minnesota — and it’s not just a “local issue,” it’s a crisis of law and order. Democrat politicians in the state are openly encouraging people to defy lawful orders from law enforcement and interfere with ICE operations, even as violent clashes escalate. In Minneapolis, federal immigration enforcement has drawn massive protests after the fatal shooting of a woman during an ICE operation and a separate incident where a Venezuelan man and others assaulted an ICE agent with a shovel and broomstick, forcing the agent to fire in self-defense. When local leaders stoke resistance to federal law enforcement, what do you think is going to happen? This isn’t peaceful protest — it’s chaos, violence against officers, and the kind of breakdown in public safety that puts everyone at risk. 16:00 We got a question in for our American Mamas — Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson. Are we seeing more celebrities and public figures openly embrace conservative values? The Mamas weigh in, reacting to some surprising “red-pill” moments—from Nicki Minaj speaking out about faith and global issues, to longtime quiet conservatives like Patricia Heaton finally opening up about what it was like to be a political “unicorn” in Hollywood. The conversation hits on why more famous voices are stepping out now: social media, the collapse of trust in legacy media, and people realizing they don’t have to think the way the culture tells them to. From Michael Rapaport’s political flip to growing shifts in the Black community, the Mamas argue this isn’t about following a trend—it’s about people thinking for themselves, finding community, and giving others the confidence to say, “I’m not alone, and I don’t have to stay quiet anymore.” If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 With more than 500 million firearms now in civilian hands, America is still governed by consent—not force. The Second Amendment isn’t just about personal protection; it’s about sovereignty, self-defense, and making tyranny too costly to even attempt. Compare that to places like Britain New York, and California where strict gun control hasn’t produced safety—it’s produced more crime, more surveillance, and more government overreach, while criminals stay armed and law-abiding citizens get disarmed. The bottom line? When power shifts away from citizens, it doesn’t disappear—it lands in the hands of criminals or the state. Those 500 million firearms are a reminder that America still remembers who she is: a free, self-governing people. 25:30 We Dig Deep into a disturbing pattern of government fraud—this time in Washington State. After the daycare fraud scandal in Minnesota, reporters started digging and found dozens of so-called “home-based childcare centers” receiving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars every month… despite the fact that no daycare was actually operating there. No kids. No business. Just checks rolling in. And when journalists did what journalists are supposed to do—knocked on doors, verified addresses, and reported the findings—the state’s response wasn’t outrage over fraud. It was outrage at the reporters. Instead of addressing where the money went, Washington officials scolded the press for exposing it, proving just how comfortable some politicians have become with unaccountable government and a compliant media. This isn’t just about daycare fraud—it’s about why a free press exists in the first place, and what happens when those in power would rather silence scrutiny than answer hard questions. 32:00 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 We talk about a major moment on the world stage as Donald Trump meets with Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado. This wasn’t just a photo op—it was a declaration of what America is supposed to stand for. After decades of socialist destruction and authoritarian rule in Venezuela, a pro-freedom leader who was hunted, persecuted, and forced into exile is now sitting down with a U.S. president to talk about her country’s future. 35:30 We take a look at just how unhinged the far-left media has become—and then point out the moment they accidentally tell the truth. Using The American Prospect as the example, we run through some of their over-the-top headlines comparing Donald Trump to genocidal dictators and accusing him of “ethnic cleansing.” Pure Trump Derangement Syndrome on full display. But here’s the twist: buried in all that hysteria, even this far-left outlet is forced to admit something they swore could never be true—Trump’s tariffs are actually working. They acknowledge the trade deficit is down, inflation hasn’t spiked, real wages are up, and foreign exporters are eating much of the cost. After years of screaming that tariffs would wreck the economy, the facts are winning. When even a publication that despises Trump has to concede his policies delivered results, that’s not just ironic—it’s a bright spot and a quiet admission that Trump may have been right all along. 39:30 We dive into the messy headlines and the real-world diplomacy behind them. While there’s been chatter—especially online—about divides and even anti-Semitism swirling through certain corners of the right (with bots amplifying the noise), the facts tell a very different story. According to the New York Times, Israel and the U.S. remain closely aligned. 41:30 And we finish off today's show with a teacher couple who will make you say, "Whoa!" Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is just a quick monologue on current events.

Sarah Isgur and David French return for a bonus episode on the Minneapolis ICE shooting and explain the concept of Supremacy Clause immunity. The Agenda:—Corrections from Thursday's episode—How to analyze police shootings—Federalism and the Supremacy Clause—Federal officer removal—Broader impacts of police violence—Bowe v. United States—Church autonomy and employment law Advisory Opinions is a production of ⁠⁠The Dispatch⁠⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—⁠⁠click here⁠⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠⁠by clicking here⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Poor Choices and Chaos the fatal ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis that has sparked nationwide controversy. Clay and Buck dissect the incident where a 37-year-old woman allegedly used her vehicle to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, resulting in her death. They emphasize video evidence showing the ICE officer acted in self-defense, countering claims from Mayor Jacob Frey and Governor Tim Walz, who labeled the shooting as excessive force and called for protests. The hosts argue this tragedy reflects a deeper problem within the Democratic Party’s anti-law enforcement rhetoric, which encourages dangerous confrontations with federal officers. VP Vance Calls Out the Left Live White House briefing featuring Vice President JD Vance and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who deliver a fiery defense of ICE and condemn the media for spreading “lies” about the incident. Vance asserts that the woman killed was part of a broader left-wing network aimed at obstructing immigration enforcement through doxxing, harassment, and even domestic terrorism tactics. He vows tougher federal action, including a new Assistant Attorney General role to prosecute those inciting violence against law enforcement. The briefing underscores the administration’s stance: enforcing immigration law is non-negotiable, and Democrats must stop rallying mobs against federal officers. Good News for MAHA Moms Guest Katie Zacharia joins to weigh in on the political fallout and broader implications. She highlights how sanctuary city policies and anti-ICE activism have fueled violence and fraud, citing California’s staggering $72 billion fraud scandal under Gavin Newsom and systemic failures in oversight. Katie calls for federal action, including suspending aid to jurisdictions violating the Supremacy Clause. The conversation shifts to California’s ongoing crises: wildfire recovery delays in Malibu and Pacific Palisades, where red tape and environmental regulations have stalled rebuilding efforts, leaving homeowners with plummeting property values. Katie also breaks down the proposed 5% billionaire wealth tax, warning it will accelerate the exodus of tech moguls and entrepreneurs from California while funding Medi-Cal programs strained by free healthcare for illegal immigrants. The hour also touches on RFK Jr.’s food pyramid overhaul and vaccine schedule changes, which have energized “Maha Moms” and even some liberal parents seeking reform in children’s health standards. Katie praises Trump for empowering RFK Jr. to challenge Big Pharma and promote healthier policies. Audience Talkbacks! Clay and Buck then pivot to lighter—but fiery—cultural debates, including regional cuisine hot takes and the “most overrated foods” in America. From Philly cheesesteaks and mint juleps to Puerto Rican Mofongo, the hosts don’t hold back, sparking laughs and listener engagement. They also revisit the nostalgia (and regret) of Jägermeister shots and Jägerbombs, contrasting them with underrated drinks like espresso martinis and sangria. The segment closes with talkbacks from listeners proposing which states or territories to “sell off,” adding humor to an otherwise intense news cycle. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuckYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureCanada is having problems, they are following the green new scam, since Trump placed tariffs on Canada they are desperately trying to find trading partners.Trump shows how windmills kill birds, where are all the environmentalist. The EU is now pushing the CBDC, Trump’s economy will overshadow the rest of the world. The people of this country and others must see the criminal syndicate. Without seeing it they people would have never believed there was a criminal syndicate. Trump has the leverage, more is coming in 2026 and after the midterms Trump is going to unleash hell on the [DS]. Every crime, scam and violation of the Constitution will be exposed. Justice is coming. Economy Canada Trying to Find Trade Partners   Prime Minister Mark Carney reflects a particular reality of the problem their economy will face in 2026. It appears that Canadian government officials have finally recognized the Trump administration plans to dissolve the USMCA or what Canada calls CUSMA next year.  With that reality they have a big problem. Mexico has been working throughout the year to initiate economic policies in alignment with the United States.  However, structurally and politically this is an alignment that is impossible for Canada to do.  Like many contracting European countries, the economic policies of Canada are centered around their climate change agenda and green energy goals. In order for Canada to position their economy to be in alignment with the rest of North America (USA and Mexico), Carney would have to reverse years of legislated rules and regulations.  That is not going to happen, and Canada will always be at a disadvantage because of it.   With three quarters of their economic production tied to exports into the USA, and with the USMCA likely to be dissolved in favor of a bilateral trade agreement, Canada now has to find other markets for its products or lower all the trade barriers currently in place.  Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to find alternative markets. Carney has looked toward Europe, but that is a closed trade bloc difficult to engage.  Carney has looked to southeast Asia, but that is an export driven market with limited capabilities to import costly western products.  Carney has looked to Japan and China, but on scale there's little to be gained. The question is, where can Canada send its products if not to the USA.   The brutally honest answer is nowhere.  There just isn't any other market, or combination of markets, who could replace the consumer base of the USA.  Canada is refusing to admit this reality and 2026 is going to be a harsh awakening for the Canadian people. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/2006140340068291046?s=20  – A 2025 Trump administration initiative aims to enforce $1 million fines per bald eagle death. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Initial Jobless Claims End 2025 Near Record Lows The number of Americans filing for jobless claims for the first time plummeted last week to 199k – the lowest since the Thanksgiving week plunge and pretty much the lowest since Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2006392860006846799?s=20   to give them a shot at winning the midterms. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2006141249045291038?s=20   went to the liquor store again and tried to buy €100 worth of booze using the government-run digital currency on your iPhone, but your transaction gets rejected. Why? Because some Eurotrash EU bureaucrat decided that it’s unhealthy for you to buy so much liquor in such a short period of time, so you gets nothing. And you have no recourse, because you have become a serf whose life is at the discretion of the government. (As an aside, single-payer, government-funded healthcare will work in synchronicity with this, deciding what is best for you health-wise, because after all it’s not fair that other citizens must pay for your cirrhosis and bad judgment.) You have been warned, Europe. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/SecDuffy/status/2006203195165462545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2006203195165462545%7Ctwgr%5Ebc322e2414802c704b50bc3c2955bae6d38269c1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F12%2F31%2Fgavin-newsom-tries-to-keep-illegals-on-the-road-a-little-longer-sean-duffy-immediately-cuts-him-off-n2197630 including cutting nearly $160 million in federal funding. https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2006168699502215508?s=20   The Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General can get involved in any DOJ matter they choose. It'a not a judge's job to get in the middle of those internal deliberations. That's a serious violation of the separation of powers. The American voters want violent illegals out of our country. Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., a Nashville Obama judge, needs to get back in his lane. https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2006046386190422054?s=20   on taxpayers, should not exploit welfare systems built by the native population, should speak the language, assimilate into the host society, respect its laws and norms, and should not receive special carve-outs like separate schools, parallel institutions or different rules. If even these minimal basics can no longer gain agreement, then there is no realistic path to fixing the system at all. DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2005795643126595959?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2005795643126595959%7Ctwgr%5E813dbbc99cf3dee762087820edf11e55af9622ca%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fjenniferoo%2F2025%2F12%2F30%2Fisis-in-texas-fbi-arrests-man-who-helped-fund-global-terrorist-organizations-n2197594   propaganda, sent cryptocurrency believing it would fund terrorist activity, and attempted to deliver materials intended for explosive devices. This is radical Islamic terrorism, and it was identified and stopped. Great work by our FBI teams @FBIDallas and great law enforcement partners. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006157155666182556?s=20 https://twitter.com/AAbsaroka/status/2005723457997484150?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2006176939854196897?s=20 https://twitter.com/Osint613/status/2005961263419883887?s=20 https://twitter.com/Osint613/status/2006095673423179995?s=20 https://twitter.com/USABehFarsi/status/2005874044319436965?s=20 Courage if it were a picture…This is a black-and-white aerial photo depicting a scene from protests in Iran (likely Tehran, based on the post’s hashtags). It shows a lone individual standing defiantly in the street, holding a long pole or banner horizontally, facing a group of about a dozen uniformed security forces or riot police on motorcycles. The image symbolizes courage in the context of human rights and anti-regime demonstrations. War/Peace https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006367551878844863?s=20 https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/2006295058492882982?s=20 https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006107978504524105?s=20 Zelenskyy Urges Trump to Visit Ukraine to Seal Russia Peace Deal Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested that President Donald Trump should visit Ukraine to help close a peace deal with Russia. Zelenskyy specifically urged Trump to travel directly into Ukraine rather than entering through Poland, arguing that such a visit would demonstrate confidence that a ceasefire is within reach. Source: newsmax.com Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda Biden Housing Scandal EXPLODES: HUD Report Reveals Over $5 Billion in Questionable Rental Aid, Including Payments to Dead People and Non-Citizens  A bombshell federal report has blown the lid off yet another massive Biden-era taxpayer scandal — this time inside the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to HUD's own Fiscal Year 2025 Agency Financial Report, more than $5 billion in rental assistance payments during the final year of the Biden regime were flagged as “questionable” or improper, exposing systemic failures, nonexistent oversight, and breathtaking incompetence at the federal level. Among the most jaw-dropping revelations: tens of thousands of payments were made to people who were already DEAD, and thousands more went to recipients who may not have even been eligible to receive taxpayer-funded housing assistance at all, the New York Post first reported. Buried in the HUD report is a stunning admission that federal systems failed to stop payments to 30,054 deceased individuals who were either still listed as active tenants or continued receiving rental assistance after their deaths. HUD officials acknowledged that only after cross-checking Treasury databases did they finally identify the scope of the problem — meaning for years, taxpayers were unknowingly footing the bill for people who no longer exist. “[Over] 30,000 dead people receiving housing isn't an accident — it was systematic fraud by Biden and the left. HUD will hold those who defrauded the American taxpayers accountable,” HUD Secretary Scott Turner wrote on X. According to the report:   “large concentration” of these questionable rental assistance funds flowed to Democrat-run strongholds, including: New York California Washington, D.C. Yet payments to deceased recipients were found in all 50 states, proving the rot was nationwide. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2006068825272508679?s=20   to U.S. citizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). There are no exceptions. Virginia violates it nonetheless. This court should put an end to this and permanently enjoin the enforcement of provisions of the Virginia Education Code that directly conflict with federal immigration law. Virginia Code §§ 23.1-502 and 23.505.1 explicitly classify illegal aliens as Virginia residents based on certain conditions. That classification makes illegal aliens eligible for reduced in-state tuition and state-administered financial assistance for public state colleges and universities while U.S. citizens from other states are ineligible for the reduced tuition and must pay higher out-of-state tuition rates. This is not only wrong but illegal. The challenged act's discriminatory treatment in favor of illegal aliens over U.S. citizens is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law, which provides that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit . . . without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a) (emphasis added). The challenged act, as applied to illegal aliens, is thus unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. This Court should declare Virginia's law, as applied to illegal aliens, preempted and permanently enjoin its enforcement.” https://twitter.com/jonesville/status/2006273719602475506?s=20 https://twitter.com/thehoffather/status/2006240702213099815?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2006327355166589007?s=20 https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/2006031707724546400?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2006038706893836481?s=20 https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2006393802714439774?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2006028437899862286?s=20  Patronage System here in America AND help them successfully assimilate. https://twitter.com/HHS_Jim/status/2006136004294664464?s=20  against the blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country: 1. I have activated our defend the spend system for all ACF payments. Starting today, all ACF payments across America will require a justification and a receipt or photo evidence before we send money to a state. 2. Alex Adams and I have identified the individuals in @nickshirleyy ‘s excellent work. I have demanded from @GovTimWalz a comprehensive audit of these centers. This includes attendance records, licenses, complaints, investigations, and inspections. 3. We have launched a dedicated fraud-reporting hotline and email address at https://childcare.gov Whether you are a parent, provider, or member of the general public, we want to hear from you. We have turned off the money spigot and we are finding the fraud. @ACFHHS @HHSGov https://twitter.com/DOGE_HHS/status/2006145075315929532?s=20 will expand the system to support itemized receipts and photographic evidence, and make all data/receipts, where possible, available to the public. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2006120694497857977?s=20   move to another state that is honest. Make sense? https://twitter.com/C__Herridge/status/2006091693259636775?s=20  alleges the probes were “buried” because it potentially implicated Biden Administration allies •Between late May 2025 and December 2025 FBI had 16 open investigations into approximately 32 healthcare and homecare providers accused of fraud •Described as massive, joint investigations including HHS Inspector General, Medicaid Fraud Unit, IRS, Postal Inspectors, MN Attorney General, MN Department of Education,  and others Probes Now Expanding In Minnesota, Investigators Are Exploring Nation-wide Fraud Schemes •FBI Surging forensic accountants and data analytics teams to MN •Identifying fraud, then “following the money” to see the “entire web” •Investigating potential links to elected officials and terrorist financing •Potential criminal violations include public corruption, fraud, cyber fraud, healthcare fraud, homecare fraud, money-laundering Investigations Include Federal Nutrition Programs •These investigations including day care facilities are exploring links to alleged fraud involving federal nutrition programs •The Feeding our Future probe exposed an alleged $250m fraud scheme that obtained federal funding during COVID for nutrition programs but almost NO meals were provided to children •It's alleged the monies were laundered through multiple entities to enrich the participants •78 have been indicted, 57 convicted, two found not guilty among the group. Just a heads up that Patel and Trump's FBI have been all over the Minnesota fraud thing for months, 78 people have already been indicted, and Kash is openly admitting that this was buried by the Biden admin. That’s not how FBI & DOJ work. Criminal investigations take months. Trials take years. No one knows yet if Bondi & Kash will measure up. It’s too early to tell. WATCH: Karoline Leavitt Says Trump “Not Afraid to Use Denaturalization” Against Somali Fraudsters — Search Warrants Being Executed and “People Will be in Handcuffs” Denaturalization, also known as revocation of naturalization, is the legal process by which the U.S. government revokes the citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen, effectively stripping them of their citizenship status. This is not a process that private individuals can initiate or “do” themselves; it is exclusively handled by the federal government through judicial proceedings in U.S. district court. It cannot be done administratively by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) alone, following a court ruling in 2000 that limited such authority. Grounds for DenaturalizationUnder the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), denaturalization can only occur based on specific legal grounds. These include: The individual did not meet statutory requirements for naturalization at the time, such as lawful permanent residence, good moral character, required periods of residence or physical presence, or attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution (INA 316 and INA 340(a)).  The person hid key information or lied during the naturalization process (e.g., on Form N-400 or in interviews), and this directly led to approval. The fact must be “material,” meaning it could have influenced the decision (INA 340(a); see Supreme Court case Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988)). Within five years after naturalization, the person joins or affiliates with the Communist Party, a totalitarian party, or a terrorist organization, which is seen as evidence of lacking attachment to the U.S. Constitution (INA 313, INA 340(c), and INA 316(a)(3)). For those who naturalized based on U.S. military service, revocation can occur if they receive a discharge under other-than-honorable conditions before completing at least five years of honorable service (INA 328(f) and INA 329(c)). These grounds apply only to naturalized citizens (those who went through the full process, including application, interview, approval, and oath). U.S.-born citizens cannot be denaturalized under these provisions. The process is initiated and pursued by the government, not individuals. Here’s a high-level overview:  USCIS or other agencies (like the Department of Homeland Security) identify potential cases through audits, investigations, or tips about fraud or ineligibility. If there’s sufficient evidence, USCIS refers the case to the Department of Justice (DOJ) via the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Coordination happens through USCIS’s Office of the Chief Counsel. Judicial Proceedings: The DOJ files a complaint in federal district court under INA 340(a). The government must prove its case by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that leaves no doubt. This is a high standard, and the process can take years. Criminal Revocation: If the case involves fraud, the DOJ may pursue criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. 1425 (unlawful procurement of citizenship). A conviction automatically revokes naturalization under INA 340(e), with proof required beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court rules in favor of revocation, it issues an order canceling the Certificate of Naturalization, which the person must surrender. Citizenship is revoked retroactively to the original naturalization date, reverting the individual to their prior immigration status (often lawful permanent resident, but this could lead to deportation proceedings under INA 237). USCIS updates records and notifies the Department of State. Denaturalization is rare—historically, around 22,000 cases occurred in the 20th century, often tied to wartime or political contexts—but it has been used more in recent years for fraud cases. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2006013185355112758?s=20   fraud in a ginormous scale. Minnesota also lets one person vouch for 8 migrant voters’ eligibility to vote WITHOUT them having to prove it! Minnesota needs to clean house, NOW. https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2006079447922008292?s=20 President Trump's Plan  https://twitter.com/FBIDDBongino/status/2006087308404314365?s=20   disrupted (210% increase) -2,000+ kilos of Fentanyl seized (up 31%), enough to kill 130 million Americans -Nihilistic Violent Extremism arrests up 490% -Over 6,000 child victims located (up 22%) -Historic drop in U.S. murder rate. Please read the post from Director Patel for more details on the progress that has been made, and is ongoing. https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2006091717074903047?s=20 https://twitter.com/Kimberlyrja8/status/2006193599365423586?s=20 LISTEN  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Send us a textCalifornia's policy circus just raised the tent—and we brought the receipts. We open with Eric Swalwell's headline-friendly promise to “unmask” ICE and charge agents with crimes, then lay out why the Supremacy Clause makes that a nonstarter. Beyond the civics lesson, we get into the damage that reckless rhetoric does in the real world: it inflames tensions, confuses voters, and targets the wrong problem when the immigration system itself needs serious, lawful reform.From there, we track the financial fallout of big promises meeting hard budgets: Medi-Cal's reversal for undocumented adults after years of rapid expansion. We break down who's still covered, where the loopholes are, and how sudden eligibility shifts destabilize hospitals, clinics, and patients. Then we follow the money to Sacramento's most opaque construction site: a $1.1 billion Capitol Annex shrouded in thousands of NDAs. Security and bid integrity are valid concerns—but “broad information” gagged from taxpayers flips accountability on its head. If public dollars fund it, public scrutiny should frame it.We also confront the content mills that keep outrage alive. From claims of “illegal orders” in the military to AI-elevated health conspiracies, too many viral stories rely on insinuation over evidence. If there were real smoking guns, they'd land in court filings and major outlets, not cryptic livestreams. And yes, we call our own side to a higher bar: character matters, especially for those seeking power. Accountability beats spin, every time.If you're hungry for clear arguments grounded in law, fiscal reality, and basic transparency, this one's for you. Share it with someone who swallows headlines whole. And while you're here, subscribe, leave a review, and tell us: which claim or policy in this episode deserves the most scrutiny next?Support the show

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for December 30, 2025. 0:30 We kick off today’s show with a major legal showdown as the U.S. Department of Justice takes aim at the state of Virginia over immigration and college tuition policy. We break down how Virginia law allows students without legal immigration status to qualify for discounted tuition if they attended Virginia schools, even as law-abiding U.S. citizens from states like West Virginia or North Carolina are forced to pay more. These benefits directly violate federal law, which prohibits states from offering post-secondary education benefits to illegal immigrants unless those same benefits are provided to all U.S. citizens on identical terms. It's a test of the Supremacy Clause and federal authority over immigration, and these policies normalize lawlessness one benefit at a time. 10:00 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said this week that the DOJ has already indicted 98 people with fraud in Minnesota this year. A federal judge has ruled that the Trump Administration does not have the authority to block funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. President Trump will become the first non-Israeli to be awarded the Israel Prize. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 We dig into the unraveling scandal surrounding fraudulent daycare operations in Minnesota. As scrutiny intensifies, the focus turns to empty daycare centers—previously exposed by independent reporting— that are now suddenly filled with children, raising serious questions about timing and credibility. 16:00 The American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson don’t hold back on this one. They take on the question of why it suddenly feels like everyone has a disability—and whether it’s about real need or working the system. While acknowledging legitimate conditions that truly require accommodations, they zero in on what they see as a disturbing trend: elite college students claiming disability status for special treatment, extra time, exemptions, and advantages. This isn’t about compassion anymore—it’s about entitlement. A culture that rewards victimhood, hands out loopholes, and teaches young people that being “broken” is a badge of honor. Comparing today’s mindset to the grit and pride of earlier generations, the Mamas warn that intelligence without ethics is dangerous, and a society that incentivizes weakness shouldn’t be surprised when responsibility, character, and resilience disappear. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 Protests are breaking out across multiple cities in Iran as the country's economy spirals. The national currency has collapsed to record lows against the U.S. dollar, inflation has surged past 40 percent, and everyday life is becoming increasingly unlivable for ordinary Iranians. 24:30 Plus, we give director and actor Steven Grayhm a call. His film Sheepdog, is set to release nationwide on January 16, centered on the unseen battles of PTSD and the long-term cost of military service. Grayhm spent years traveling the country, listening to veterans, Gold Star families, and mental-health professionals, determined to tell their stories without political spin or Hollywood gloss. The result, he says, is a “love letter” to those who wore the uniform and the families who carried the burden alongside them. 32:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 According to newly revealed information, more than $5 billion in HUD rental assistance payments during the final year of the Biden administration were flagged as questionable or improper—an eye-popping figure that immediately raises red flags. According to newly revealed information, more than $5 billion in HUD rental assistance payments during the final year of the Biden administration were flagged as questionable or improper—an eye-popping figure that immediately raises red flags. The most jaw-dropping detail: over 30,000 of those payments allegedly went to people who were already deceased. 35:30 New data shows Bible sales in the United States are booming, with double-digit growth two years in a row, and that's a Bright Spot. The resurgence isn’t limited to Bible sales alone. Church attendance is rising, especially among young people, with Catholic parishes seeing growth even in major cities like New York—places long declared spiritually dead by the secular elite. Add in the historic election of the first American pope, and the signs of a broader faith revival are hard to miss. 39:30 Here’s something that stopped us in our tracks: Charlie Kirk was the most searched name in the world in 2025. Not just in the United States—globally. More than any other news story, more than any other headline, Charlie Kirk topped Google search inquiries worldwide. 41:00 And we finish off today's episode with the most popular New Year's resolutions. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If courtroom showdowns, legal strategy, and headline-making trials are your thing, you won't want to miss this episode!Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! In this episode, Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen talk about a hot legal issue that's making big headlines: the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan.This isn't your everyday courtroom drama—judge Dugan's actions set off a wave of political controversy and questions about judicial authority, federal versus state power, and the real-life consequences of policies clashing in America's courthouses.Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen break down the facts like a law school case study, dissecting the judge's decision to confront federal immigration agents and help an undocumented defendant avoid ICE agents in the courthouse.The conversation covers everything from the tangled web of federal and state jurisdictions, the constitutional Supremacy Clause, and judicial immunity, to the practical strategies used in jury selection—like seeking jurors who might lean a certain way politically.Throughout the episode, you'll hear spirited debate, memorable courthouse anecdotes, and sharp legal analysis as Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen put themselves in the shoes of both the prosecution and the defense. They predict outcomes, debate gray areas in the law, and even place a friendly wager on how this real-world legal drama will unfold.Moments00:00 "Judge Defies ICE in Courtroom"03:29 "Out the Back Door"09:13 "Supremacy Clause and Federal Law"12:45 "Mens Rea: Intent Explained"15:44 "Politics and Fair Trial Debate"17:11 Jury Nullification and Political Context20:30 "Verdict Predictions and Recap"Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, most of the media are criticizing U.S. attacks on Venezuelan drug boats as illegal with cherry picked experts who don't specify what law was violated or rely on vague arguments. It's an act of war when Venezuela sends in toxic drugs to America. It's odd that the Democrats and some RINO's first instinct is to attack Pete Hegseth and not the enemy. The more they hate you the more effective you are. Later, Rep Chip Roy calls in with an update on his race for Texas Attorney General. He also argues that the President of the United States has the constitutional authority under Article II powers to preemptively strike a boat carrying drugs operated by narco-terrorists from Venezuela. Afterward, Qatar is ramping up a charm offensive amid scrutiny over its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood following the October 7 attacks, hosting House Republicans and influencers. Also, Dinesh D'Souza calls in and reveals that Qataris view themselves as the true chosen people due to their effortless oil wealth, freeing the nation from labor. Instead, they pursue financial jihad by deploying resources to purchase influence. For decades, they've targeted American universities, funding entire departments like political science rather than isolated events. Recently, they've shifted to infiltrating the conservative movement to foster divisions within the right, achieving some success with substantial funding that many are yielding to, and people should recognize this as a paid influence operation. Finally,  there's a new Democrat Party confederacy, where sanctuary cities and states unconstitutionally nullify federal immigration laws under the Supremacy Clause, akin to secession since the Civil War. Democrats disregard the law and Constitution, destroying the country by supporting communities pushing Sharia law and Islamist enclaves to influence states like Texas, with figures like Zohran Mamdani embodying their power-driven ideology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Federalism: Navigating the Complexities of State and Federal PowerThis conversation delves into the complexities of constitutional law, focusing on federalism and state power. The discussion covers key doctrines such as the anti-commandeering doctrine, preemption under the Supremacy Clause, sovereign immunity, and the dormant commerce clause. Each topic is explored in depth, providing insights into how these legal principles interact and affect the balance of power between state and federal governments. The conversation aims to equip law students with a framework for analyzing federalism issues, particularly in preparation for exams and the bar.Federalism is a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional framework, embodying the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. This intricate dance of power is not just a historical artifact but a living, breathing aspect of American governance that continues to evolve. In this post, we delve into the nuances of federalism, exploring key doctrines and landmark cases that define the boundaries of state and federal power.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: At the heart of federalism lies the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that prevents the federal government from commandeering state governments to enforce federal laws. This doctrine was solidified in cases like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of state autonomy and accountability. The doctrine ensures that states remain independent entities, not mere administrative arms of the federal government.Preemption and the Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. However, the application of this principle is not always straightforward. Preemption can be express, where federal law explicitly overrides state law, or implied, where federal regulation is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state action. Understanding the nuances of preemption is crucial for navigating the legal landscape of federalism.The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Dormant Commerce Clause is an implicit aspect of the Commerce Clause, preventing states from enacting legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This doctrine aims to maintain a national economic union, free from protectionist state policies. However, its application often involves complex judicial balancing, as seen in cases like Pike v. Bruce Church and Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines.Federalism is a dynamic and complex system that requires constant negotiation and interpretation. As we continue to grapple with the balance of power between state and federal governments, understanding these foundational doctrines and their implications is essential. Whether you're a law student preparing for exams or a citizen interested in the workings of government, federalism remains a vital and fascinating area of study. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest developments in constitutional law.TakeawaysLaw students often struggle with applying the correct test in complex fact patterns.The anti-commandeering doctrine preserves state sovereignty by preventing Congress from forcing states to enact federal laws.Preemption ensures federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, based on congressional intent.Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent, emphasizing state dignity.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.Understanding the distinction between express and implied preemption is crucial for legal analysis.constitutional law, federalism, state power, anti-commandeering, preemption, sovereign immunity, dormant commerce clause, legal analysis, bar exam, law school

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for November 26, 2025. 0:30 We break down the situation unfolding in Portland, Oregon. The state’s attorney general is threatening to prosecute federal agents for enforcing federal law on federal property, even as Antifa-aligned mobs wreak havoc in Portland. It’s a political standoff turning into a constitutional showdown, raising big questions about the Supremacy Clause, federal authority, and what happens when states decide they can overrule Washington. This one’s not just messy—it’s dangerous. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. Two National Guardsmen were shot while deployed in Washington D.C. today. The last election interference case filed against President Trump has now been dismissed. Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced she will not be seeking a 4th term in office next year. 12:30 Get Performlyte from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 Two National Guardsmen—American heroes—were shot and critically injured while serving their country in Washington, D.C. Vice President JD Vance says we pray they’re home with their families by Thanksgiving. And while it shouldn’t be political to support our Guard, our military, our first responders… something about this shooting feels different. Feels intentional. Feels targeted. Maybe we’re wrong—God willing, we are—but every instinct says this wasn’t random. What we do know is simple: America doesn’t turn its back on its heroes. We lift them up. We stand with them. And right now, we pray for these guardsmen and the families waiting for them to come home. 16:00 Is having a boyfriend embarrassing now? Believe it or not, that’s the latest trend on social media—young influencers claiming relationships feel “too Republican.” American Mamas Terry Netterville and Kimberly Burleson jump in with both feet, asking why Gen Z is suddenly acting like commitment is cringe, joy is optional, and loneliness is some kind of virtue signal. From the data showing married women and men are far happier, to the cultural push telling young people they “don’t need anyone,” the Mamas break down what’s real, what’s nonsense, and why purpose—and yes, love—still matter. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 We’re talking about something Washington forgot a long time ago: the American spirit isn’t passive—it doesn’t retreat, it doesn’t flinch, and it sure doesn’t surrender a single inch of our cities to chaos.After two National Guardsmen were shot in D.C., President Trump didn’t wring his hands or hide behind caution tape—he immediately ordered Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to deploy 500 more Guardsmen to the capital. But while Trump stands firm, America’s big-city Democrats have gotten used to surrender—accepting crime, excusing violence, normalizing failure. And now they’re furious that someone is finally saying “No more.” 26:30 Trust in the media just hit rock bottom—Gallup shows only 28% of Americans believe the news is fair, and among Republicans? A jaw-dropping 8%. And this week, the media proved exactly why. MSNOW ran a sensational “scoop” claiming President Trump was preparing to fire FBI Director Kash Patel. Anonymous sources, dramatic language—classic beltway gossip. Only one problem: it was completely fake. But this isn’t AI gone rogue. This is the media and deep-state leakers pumping out story after story, knowing the algorithms will blast it to millions before the truth catches up. 32:00 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 We dig into new poll showing a majority of voters under 40 backing a democratic socialist for president — and the wild part? Many say the biggest influence wasn’t TikTok… it was their parents and grandparents. We get into how we drifted this far, why Reagan warned us this would happen, and how a generation got talked into believing socialism is just “sharing.” 36:00 We’re talking planes, pajamas, and personal standards — all sparked by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s call for Americans to step it up when they fly. From the viral chaos in airplane aisles to the growing trend of slippers-in-the-supermarket, we dig into what happened to basic manners, why dressing well changes how we act, and whether a little self-respect could make travel (and everything else) a whole lot better. 39:30 If you’re listening on podcast — Salem Podcast Network, Apple, Spotify, anywhere you get your shows — head over to AmericanGroundRadio.com because we’ve got a brand-new content up for Thanksgiving, and it hits at the heart of what we talk about all the time. This isn’t just turkey, travel, and family gatherings.This is about identity — who we are as Americans, what our Founders intended Thanksgiving to remind us of, and why gratitude is a force that holds nations together. 41:30 And we finish off with a bus driver who will make you say, "Whoa." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trump strikes back! In this explosive Bonus Episode 226 of The Alan Sanders Show, dive into President Trump's executive order nullifying Biden's controversial autopen-signed directives. Ukraine corruption exposed: Zelensky's inner circle raided amid massive Energoatom scandal. Tesla's game-changing 4680 battery patent breakthrough promises cheaper EVs. Plus, Supremacy Clause showdown as Oregon's governor clashes with federal authority. And it is perfectly legal, both from US law and International Law to destroy Narco-terrorist threats. Unpack the headlines shaking America! Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!

Send me feedback!I review Chicago Mayor Johnson's Executive Order and address commentary I'm seeing online. Does it violate the Supremacy Clause? What about Art I Sec 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution? And is it libertarian?SUPPORT THE SHOWGet a 10% discount by using the code LibertyDad at Black Guns Matter shop.OR, use the referral linkFIND ME ELSEWHERELinktreeSHOW NOTESWGN NewsMayor Johnson's Executive Order (PDF link)

What's been landing in Alaska? SNAP chaos, shortened public comment periods, and ICE enforcement. Rachel and John also discuss the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and play public policy pursuit.

     Slam The Gavel Podcast welcomes Edyta (Edie) Hanna Basista. Edie is a civil rights advocate, trauma survivor, and pro se federal plaintiff in Basista & Palacios v. Batch, et al., a landmark constitutional lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.     The case names 25 defendants, including judges, elected officials, attorneys, police officers, former spouses, licensed therapists, and state-contracted service providers, for their roles in a coordinated pattern of constitutional violations. Edyta's parental access was severed without a finding of unfitness, without an evidentiary hearing, and without lawful adjudication. Sealed trauma records were unlawfully disclosed. Court access was obstructed through procedural manipulation. Judicial actors refused to recuse despite personal and political conflicts, and retaliation was used to silence her legal efforts.     This is not a custody matter, it is a federal civil rights case grounded in binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and asserting violations of the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supremacy Clause, the ADA, and VAWA. The lawsuit exposes how courts and state-aligned professionals weaponized trauma, disability status, and indigency to deny her access to justice — and how that abuse was not accidental, but institutional.     Edyta Basista stands not only for herself, but for every parent, survivor, and disabled litigant who has been denied a fair hearing under law. Her case demands federal enforcement of constitutional rights where state systems have failed, and forces the question: Who protects the rights of the vulnerable when the courts become the violators?To Reach Edie Basista:  ehbasista@gmail.com and on Facebook: Edie Basista.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyrightSupport the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

In this week’s episode, I’m diving into one of the most important and contentious topics facing Boston today: the city’s sanctuary policies, the upcoming mayoral race, and what it all means for public safety and local governance. With my experience in politics and advocacy, I break down the direct conflict between Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu and federal authorities, examining how sanctuary city measures like the 2014 Trust Act challenge national laws and the expectations placed on local leaders. I dissect Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter demanding Boston’s compliance with ICE, the broader implications of refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and how these policies can put public safety at risk. I lay out my concerns about how city and state officials handle alleged criminal non-citizens, the results of releasing individuals with criminal records, and the strain this brings to Massachusetts’ justice system. Throughout, I call out blue state leaders for what I see as prioritizing political ideology over real community safety, arguing that the Supremacy Clause firmly puts federal authority above local policy. This episode takes a hard look at the humanitarian and public safety issues at play, with an eye on the political consequences for leaders and communities alike. “No one wants a criminal living amongst them. It's a public safety issue. No one wants that.”~Jennifer Nassour This week on Political Contessa: Boston’s sanctuary city status facing federal pushback● The impact of the 2014 Trust Act on police cooperation with ICE● Attorney General Pam Bondi’s call for compliance with federal law● Concerns about releasing alleged criminal non-citizens into the community● Strain on criminal justice resources in Massachusetts● The implications of the Supremacy Clause in immigration enforcement● Critique of blue state leadership and public safety priorities● Political consequences for Democrats and Republicans in upcoming elections Awaken Your Inner Political Contessa Thanks for tuning into this week’s episode of Political Contessa. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. Spotify I Stitcher I Apple Podcasts I iHeart Radio I TuneIn I Google Podcasts Be sure to share your favorite episodes on social media. And if you’ve ever considered running for office – or know a woman who should – head over to politicalcontessa.com to grab my quick guide, Secrets from the Campaign Trail. It will show you five signs to tell you you’re ready to enter the political arena. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Parents face growing concerns as schools defy federal law on Title IX, pushing policies that allow boys in girls' sports and facilities. Despite the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, states and districts resist compliance, sparking lawsuits and national debate. Families must remain vigilant to ensure education systems respect law, protect children, and uphold fairness in schools...

Steve Palmer here - I'm joined by our resident law student, Troy Hendrickson, who's here to bring a fresh perspective and some real-life questions from the trenches.Today, Troy brings up a hot topic that's been making waves among his fellow clerks and across legal social media: Can courts stop ICE agents from making arrests inside the courtroom? We look into real cases—including one where a judge faced criminal charges for attempting to help a defendant evade ICE—and discuss candidly the legal and ethical limits for lawyers and judges when it comes to federal agents and immigration enforcement.We'll cover important concepts like the supremacy of federal law, what attorneys can and can't do when it comes to clients facing arrest, and where the line is between standing up for your beliefs and risking your career. Whether you're a law student, a practicing attorney, or just curious about the realities behind courtroom doors, you'll find plenty to chew on in this episode.Key Moments00:00 Judge Aids Defendant's Escape05:19 "Unpleasant Ethical Duties in Law"08:27 Legal Ethics: No Crime Assistance12:20 Arguing Both Sides Skillfully13:06 Mastering Argument: Embrace All SidesHere are my top 3 takeaways:Ethics over Emotion: As attorneys, our personal views can't trump ethical and legal obligations. Even if you disagree with the government's actions, taking active measures to help clients evade arrest (like sneaking them out the back) can cross into obstruction of justice—and carry real consequences.Know Where the Line Is: There's a critical difference between informing a client of a warrant and helping them hide or avoid law enforcement. Advising is part of the job; aiding in evasion is not.Federal vs. State Authority: The courtroom is a public forum, and ICE—as federal agents—cannot easily be banned from the space by local judges. The Supremacy Clause puts federal law above state, meaning local attempts to keep ICE out could backfire.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences...

This Day in Legal History: First SCOTUS DecisionOn August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court's willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court's entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump's energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump's priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump's first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country's largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner's promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, PowerA closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump's June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump's authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president's power to use military forces domestically.Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | ReutersU.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump's trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry's Financial Index score hit 55, up four points from Q1, but the report warned of risks ahead as overhead costs climb, collections dip, and productivity lags 1.3% year-over-year. Unpaid bills and write-downs could create further financial pressure if trends persist. Law firms stayed busy in second quarter but uncertainty looms - report | ReutersThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to terminate its labor contract with the union representing 8,000 of its employees, according to the union's president. The action is part of President Trump's broader push to limit collective bargaining rights across federal agencies. Trump's March executive order seeks to remove such rights at more than 30 agencies, including the EPA, and is being challenged in court by unions that argue it violates free speech and bargaining obligations. The EPA says it is acting in compliance with the order, which would make it easier for agencies to discipline or dismiss workers. The move comes as the EPA plans to reduce its workforce by at least 23% and close its scientific research office as part of broader federal downsizing. Unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, are suing to stop the effort, but a recent federal appeals court decision allowed the administration to proceed with exempting some agencies from negotiating with unions. The union representing EPA employees has pledged a legal response.Trump's environment agency terminates contract with unionized employees | 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

Send us a textDr. Robert Jackson welcomes constitutional attorney and scholar Joe Wolverton to the More Than Medicine studio for a revealing conversation about American liberty and our constitutional foundations. Wolverton, who serves as the constitutional law scholar for the John Birch Society, shares the story of his journey from Fourth Amendment defender to full-time liberty advocate.The centerpiece of their discussion revolves around Wolverton's groundbreaking new educational series, "Blueprint for Liberty." This comprehensive program addresses a troubling reality: even among patriots and conservatives, fundamental constitutional knowledge is severely lacking. Wolverton explains how the series takes viewers back to basics—examining what powers were granted to the federal government, who granted those powers, and where those enumerated powers are found in the Constitution.Particularly enlightening is Wolverton's clarification of commonly misunderstood constitutional principles. He dismantles the widespread misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause, explaining that it establishes the Constitution—not the federal government—as supreme. Federal laws are only supreme when made "in pursuance of the Constitution," not in violation of it. The conversation also touches on constitutional requirements for sound money, the three branches' specific powers, and how citizens can actively participate in restoring constitutional governance. As Wolverton notes, "Once you've been warned, you should warn your neighbor"—but many well-intentioned Americans simply don't know how to effectively engage.Ready to deepen your constitutional understanding? The "Blueprint for Liberty" series debuts this September at a leadership conference near Valley Forge featuring General Flynn as keynote speaker, after which it will be available online and on DVD. Visit jbs.org for more information about this initiative designed not to make money, but to "make patriots" equipped to defend their God-given rights.Support the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/

Jill Wine-Banks hosts #SistersInLaw to explain the state of the cases against Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, emphasizing their past convictions and how the current perceptions of their crimes are affecting our politics.  Then, the #Sisters explore the relationship between U.S. Attorneys and the DOJ, focusing on the tension between the executive and judicial branches, and the factors that influence the confirmation process.  They also look at a recent legal challenge to sanctuary cities, discuss its relation to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and game out the next steps in the Trump Administration's war on immigration. Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch #SistersInLaw Spin-off Shows Are Here! Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Get Barb's book, Attack From Within, coming out in paperback! Joyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available for pre-order!  Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Support This Week's Sponsors Wild Grain:  Get $30 off and free croissants in every box when you start your subscription to delicious quick-bake artisanal pastries, pasta, and bread at wildgrain.com/sisters with promo code: SISTERS Quince: Get 365-day returns and free shipping on high-quality, stylish, and affordable clothing you'll wear for years to come when you go to quince.com/sisters Helix: Get 27% off sitewide on Helix mattresses! Go to helixsleep.com/sisters  DeleteMe: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you text SISTERS to 64000. Message and data rates apply. Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack | 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 YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he breaks down today's biggest stories shaping America and the world. Trump Visits “Alligator Alcatraz” Amid Immigration Firestorm President Trump visits a new detention facility for illegal immigrants deep in Florida's Everglades. Nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” the site was built in secrecy using Biden-era hotel funds, sparking lawsuits from environmentalists and migrant groups. Meanwhile, the Senate fails to pass a Medicaid ban for illegal immigrants, and House Republicans move forward with a bill to deport those arrested for DUIs. LA Sued for Sanctuary Policies, Activists Launch ICE-Tracking App The Trump administration sues Los Angeles for violating the Constitution's Supremacy Clause with its sanctuary city policies. At the same time, a Democrat activist and Antifa supporter launches an app to help migrants avoid ICE agents. Critics warn the app could incite violence against law enforcement, especially as pride in America drops sharply among Democrats, according to new Gallup polling. Hamas Crumbles in Gaza as Netanyahu Eyes Peace Israel's operation in Gaza has killed top Hamas leaders and brought 75% of the territory under Israeli control. Internal resistance to Hamas is growing among Palestinian clans, even as militants continue sporadic attacks. The U.S. now faces a strategic dilemma after depleting 20% of its anti-missile stockpiles during the conflict. Russia's Offensive Stalls, Ukraine Sends Grandfathers to the Front Russia's summer offensive falters due to poor morale, corruption, and untrained soldiers. Ukraine, running low on manpower, is deploying men in their 50s and 60s to the front lines, while corruption plagues the country's funeral industry amid surging war casualties. Mexican Cartels Use AI to Track and Kill FBI Informants A DOJ report reveals that the Sinaloa Cartel used cellphone metadata and Mexico City surveillance to track U.S. officials and murder FBI informants. The breach highlights growing dangers of digital surveillance and "digital exhaust," with Bryan urging listeners to reduce their own digital footprint. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." – John 8:32

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Exploring recent Supreme Court decisions on Maryland and Rhode Island gun regulations, this piece examines dissenting opinions by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas that challenge lower court reasoning and question adherence to the Supremacy Clause. It also delves into federal clashes with sanctuary cities over illegal immigrant policies, highlighting constitutional tensions shaping...

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether the Supremacy Clause prevents individuals from suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act when federal employees' actions, even if negligent or wrongful, are related to carrying out federal policy and can be interpreted as following federal laws; and (2) whether the discretionary-function exception, which usually protects the government from being sued for certain decisions made by its employees, is always inapplicable when dealing with claims related to law enforcement officers' actions that fall under the intentional torts category?

Join me as we discard the low-IQ panic over Trump's tariff moves, and apply common sense to understand exactly what's going on and why these are the right moves for America--especially as just a single facet of a much broader plan to save America's economy from implosion. We'll also take a look at how a Boston judge has so lost her legal mind that she mistakenly believes her court wields authority over the federal government that the US Constitution makes supreme over every state--naturally, the case involves the judge's reflexive instinct to value the interests of violent illegal migrants over those of her own state's residents. 

Federal law is NOT always supreme - far from it. That's a myth ripped straight from the British system that sparked the American Revolution. This episode exposes the Supremacy Clause Hoax - one of the worst distortions of the Constitution, pushing the idea that the federal government holds virtually unlimited power. The Founders fought a long, bloody war to escape that very system - yet today, it's being embraced once again. The post The Supremacy Clause Hoax: How We Became What the Founders Fought first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.