Podcasts about supreme court cases

Supreme Court, Trade Tariffs, and the Stagnant Order. Alan Tonelson discusses a Supreme Court case challenging the president's tariff powers (the "Liberation Day tariffs"), which he expects the administration to win. Tonelson cites historical deference to presidential foreign policy power and the president's authority to use other well-established tariffing measures, calling arguments against his powers "legally ignorant." The conversation also explores Michael Beckley's theory of a "stagnant order" among superpowers, leading them to act parasitically or defensively. Tonelson disagrees with the stagnation premise for the US, anticipating a major productivity boom thanks to artificial intelligence.

Supreme Court, Trade Tariffs, and the Stagnant Order. Alan Tonelson discusses a Supreme Court case challenging the president's tariff powers (the "Liberation Day tariffs"), which he expects the administration to win. Tonelson cites historical deference to presidential foreign policy power and the president's authority to use other well-established tariffing measures, calling arguments against his powers "legally ignorant." The conversation also explores Michael Beckley's theory of a "stagnant order" among superpowers, leading them to act parasitically or defensively. Tonelson disagrees with the stagnation premise for the US, anticipating a major productivity boom thanks to artificial intelligence.

Barely a day seems to pass without Donald Trump's name in the headlines, and the courtroom drama over the past week has been nothing short of remarkable. Right now, as we find ourselves on October 31, 2025, the former president is juggling a trio of active criminal cases, not to mention the aftermath of his high-profile conviction in New York back in May 2024. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that these are not just legal battles; they've become central to the country's political discourse and national mood.Let's get right to it—the New York criminal case, where Trump was convicted of multiple felonies related to falsification of business records, continues to cast a long shadow. To this day, his legal team is deep into appeals, but that conviction sent shockwaves through both legal circles and politics, signaling that no one, not even a former president, sits above the law.But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Down in Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is still aggressively pursuing Trump and his associates for their alleged roles in attempting to overturn the state's 2020 election results. Courtrooms have become stages for heated arguments over evidence, witness lists, and the ever-present question of whether a trial might bleed dangerously close to the next presidential election cycle.Meanwhile, the federal courts are staying busy. Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution concerning Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol events is ongoing. Testimony from former aides and Capitol security experts dominated recent proceedings. Legal analysts point out that the intersection of free speech, presidential power, and criminal responsibility is right at the heart of these hearings.Lawfare Media has been closely tracking nearly 300 active cases that challenge Trump administration actions, from immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities—such as the recent denied injunction in City of Chelsea v. President Trump, decided earlier this month—to ongoing litigation over executive orders, national security issues, and challenges brought all the way to the Supreme Court. Some cases, like those invoking the Alien Enemies Act, are still pending, with states and civil rights groups arguing over the scope of presidential authority during perceived national emergencies.Amid all this legal maneuvering, names like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington D.C., defense attorney Todd Blanche, and prosecutors from both state and federal offices are appearing on airwaves and in headlines almost daily. Court dates, delays, and rulings all slip easily from legal language into everyday conversation, as Americans wait to see whether any outcome will deliver closure or only add to the division.For many, the thicket of cases—spanning the Supreme Court dockets, federal courts, and local criminal trials—highlights a fundamental moment for the country's legal system. Are the courts delivering justice, or is politics warping the process? That's the debate echoing across living rooms, campaign rallies, and, of course, social media.Thanks for tuning in to this week's whirlwind through the Trump trials. Be sure to come back next week for more developments and insights. This has been a Quiet Please production—if you want more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Legal Docket on police power, double jeopardy, and attorney-client limits; Moneybeat on the tariff drama with Canada; and History Book on the deadliest modern attack against Iraqi Christians. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Asbury University — where students are known, supported, and prepared to lead. Customized visits available. asbury.edu/visitAnd from Cedarville University—a Christ-centered, academically rigorous university located in southwest Ohio, equipping students for Gospel impact across every career and calling. Cedarville integrates a biblical worldview into every course in the more than 175 undergraduate and graduate programs students choose from. New online undergraduate degrees through Cedarville Online offer flexible and affordable education grounded in a strong Christian community that fosters both faith and learning. Learn more at cedarville.edu, and explore online programs at cedarville.edu/online

The Supreme Court will hear Hencely v. Fluor on November 3, revisiting a decades-old precedent that shields contractors from state-law claims tied to military operations. Here to explain how the combatant activities exception works, and why this case could reshape risk and accountability for contractors in conflict zones is Lisa Himes of counsel with Rogers Joseph O'Donnell.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Walking through the world these past few days, it's impossible not to feel the weight of history as Donald Trump's courtroom battles command headlines and conversations alike. As of October 24th, 2025, Trump's legal saga has reached an intensity few could have predicted, with trials spanning from district courts all the way to the Supreme Court. Each proceeding has the energy of a high-stakes drama, with new twists at every session.Just this week, we saw the federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., become a stage for discussions on Trump's actions while in office. In the criminal case involving alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, prosecutors brought forward fresh evidence—including testimonies from former aides—that put a spotlight on conversations inside the White House during January 2021. Supporters and protestors have crowded the courthouse steps daily, their voices creating a constant backdrop for the legal action inside.Meanwhile, in New York, former President Trump faced a different kind of scrutiny. The civil fraud trial there continues to dominate headlines as Letitia James, the state's Attorney General, pushes forward her claim that Trump and his company repeatedly misrepresented their finances to banks and insurers. This week's testimony from Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's former chief financial officer, gripped the courtroom and brought a new layer of detail to the allegations. Reporters from CNN and the Associated Press have described the cross-examinations as relentless, with both sides fiercely contesting what constitutes “inflating values.”Over on the West Coast, yet another courtroom drama is playing out. On October 3rd, according to the Lawfare Project's Litigation Tracker, the Northern District of California delivered a ruling in City of Chelsea v. President Trump regarding immigration enforcement in so-called sanctuary cities. Here, the judge denied Trump's push to expand federal control, a legal defeat that quickly reverberated through cable news.The Supreme Court's docket, tracked in detail on its official website, shows multiple pending appeals connected to Trump, including disputes over executive privilege and the boundaries of presidential immunity. Legal scholars from around the country are debating in newspapers and on air what these cases could mean for the future balance of power and for future presidents themselves.And through it all, Donald Trump remains a presence both in and outside the courtroom. He's been vocal on Truth Social, insisting that each case is politically motivated, even as the judiciary methodically moves forward. Every day, journalists from outlets like the New York Times and Reuters file updates on depositions, sidebars, and the constant parade of witnesses.Thank you for tuning in to this whirlwind week of legal battles, firsthand drama, and American history in the making. Be sure to come back next week for more, and remember—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court's skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:Following the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year's affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case's impact nationally.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Steve is joined by Kaylan Phillips, Senior Counsel at the Public Interest Legal Foundation, to discuss the Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais, a potential landmark decision on race-based congressional districts. They explore how the case could reshape redistricting law, the legal arguments at stake, and why it matters for fair representation and voter equality across the country. A must-listen for anyone following the future of voting rights, election integrity, and constitutional law.

Privacy: May law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring? - Argued: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 15:10:38 EDT

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court just heard a case that could redefine what “conversion therapy” really means — and whether Christian counselors are allowed to help people live according to biblical truth. In this episode, Brady Cone breaks down the history behind these controversial bans, how activists have redefined the term, and why the Colorado case could set a major precedent for religious freedom and free speech.

It's been quite a week watching the unfolding drama in our nation's courts, as the spotlight turns squarely on Donald Trump and the tsunami of litigation swirling around him. I'm here to walk you through what's happened—rapid fire—so let's jump right into the heart of the courtroom battles gripping the country.Washington D.C. has become the epicenter for Trump's most recent legal showdowns. Major cases have been dragging executive actions from his administration into the harsh glow of judicial scrutiny. The National Association of the Deaf, for example, is in the thick of a civil liberties battle. They've sued Trump alongside White House staff Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt, arguing that the administration's decision to halt ASL interpretation at official briefings violates not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 but the core tenets of the First and Fifth Amendments. This case highlights not just accessibility, but the larger question of equal protection and freedom of information. The deaf and hard of hearing community is demanding that the government reinstate these vital services or face judicial intervention.Meanwhile, Executive Order 14248 has triggered another storm of litigation over election law. The Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the states of Washington and Oregon have challenged sweeping changes that require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, freeze federal funds to noncompliant states, and reassess voting systems across the country. Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied a motion by Trump's team to strike the case, signaling that the courts are taking these challenges seriously as they weigh the balance between election integrity and civil rights. The stakes are sky-high as the nation looks ahead to November.But the drama extends all the way to the Supreme Court. As the new term kicked off last week, the justices are staring down monumental cases that could redefine presidential power itself. The most contentious? Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which thrust the issue of massive tariffs right onto the Supreme Court's docket. The lower courts have said Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but Trump maintains that his ability to “regulate” foreign imports implicitly includes imposing tariffs. Legal analysts, like Deepak Gupta, are calling it a once-in-a-century test—a battle that could fundamentally alter how much power the presidency wields.Behind the scenes, litigation trackers from Lawfare and Just Security have been working overtime, cataloging dozens of actions challenging Trump's sweeping executive orders. From restoring the death penalty to accessibility and election rules, each case chips away at—or tries to reinforce—the boundary between presidential power and constitutional rights.It's clear that the coming days, and indeed the next several months, will see Trump's legal fate played out not just in headlines but in courtroom arguments and rulings with profound national impact. The questions swirling in America's courts aren't just about Donald Trump—they're about what the presidency itself should be.Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more of the latest updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

OA1198 - In this very special episode, Matt catches up with his Constitutional law professor for the first time in 23 years!  We follow up with our closer look at the science behind Brown v Board (OA1186) with University of Michigan Law professor Michelle Adams, who takes us through the fascinating and ultimately tragic story of how the promise of Brown ended twenty years later in the struggle to overcome de facto segregation in her hometown of Detroit. Professor Adams has literally written the book on this subject, and if you enjoyed this conversation be sure to pick up her recent masterwork The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North.  The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North, Prof. Michelle  Adams (2024) Michelle Adams | University of Michigan Law School Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) “Mapping Inequality,” University of Richmond (interactive maps of redlining in major US cities) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

As we navigate the complex world of court trials involving Donald Trump, the landscape is both fascinating and contentious. Over the past few days, several key legal challenges have emerged, setting the stage for a pivotal term in the Supreme Court.One of the most significant cases is *Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.*, which has been consolidated with another case for briefing and oral argument. This case, filed by Donald Trump, President of the United States, et al., against V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., was docketed on September 4, 2025. The petition for a writ of certiorari was granted, and the case is set for argument in the first week of November 2025[1]. This case is part of a broader series of legal challenges involving Trump, highlighting his efforts to expand executive power and the numerous lawsuits resisting these actions.Another case that has garnered attention is *Trump v. Slaughter*, which will be argued in December 2025. This case involves the firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner and raises critical questions about presidential removal power. Specifically, it challenges the precedent set by *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which restricted the president's ability to remove agency heads without good cause. Trump has argued that this decision was incorrect, advocating for a "unitary executive" theory that grants the president broader authority over the executive branch[2].In addition to these high-profile cases, Trump is also facing challenges in *Trump v. Cook*, which concerns the removal of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on this matter, focusing on whether the president has the power to fire governors of the Federal Reserve, who are appointed for 14-year terms and can only be removed for cause[2]. This case is particularly significant because it involves an institution that is often seen as operating independently of direct presidential control.These cases reflect a broader trend of legal challenges to Trump's executive actions, with many involving national security and constitutional issues. The Trump administration is currently embroiled in nearly 300 active cases, with a significant portion of these reaching the Supreme Court on its emergency docket[3]. The court's decisions on these matters will have profound implications for the future of presidential power and the checks and balances within the U.S. system.As we watch these trials unfold, it becomes clear that this term of the Supreme Court will be critical in shaping American democracy. The balance between executive authority and judicial oversight is being tested, and the outcomes will have lasting impacts on the rule of law and institutional norms.Thank you for tuning in today. Join us next week for more updates on these and other important legal developments. This has been a Quiet Please production; for more information and analysis, visit QuietPleaseDotAI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Mallory Sleight of Alliance Defending Freedom Alliance Defending Freedom The post A US Supreme Court Case on a Colorado Law Forbidding Counselors from Discouraging Children from Transitioning – Mallory Sleight, 10/10/25 (2831) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

When truth becomes optional, courage becomes essential. In this episode, Dr. Kathy Koch and Wayne Stender unpack a Supreme Court case surrounding Christian counselor Kaley Childs and explore what it means to raise kids who stand firm in truth with grace. Discover how lies breed anxiety and confusion, but truth, spoken with love, restores peace, identity, and confidence in who God made us to be.

Mississippi's top health official says the state is at risk of running out of funds for its food and nutrition program if the Federal Government shutdown continues. Then: The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a Mississippi voting rights case that could affect how voters fight discrimination at the ballot box.Plus: Opponents of the death penalty rally outside the state Supreme Court protesting the scheduled execution of a man convicted of murder and rape of a college student. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Luis Valdes, National Spokesperson for Gun Owners of America joins to talk about banks threaten the second Amendment and Supreme Court and Hawaii concealed weapon.

Ryan Wiggins, Host of Wiggins America joins to talk about Yahoo releasing the most important cases that the Supreme Court will hear.

Today on the Marc Cox Morning Show; Fox News Radio, Jonathan Savage is in London and joins the show to talk about what is happening today in Israel. Former Missouri Senator John Lamping joins to talk about deploying the National Guard, violence in Columbia and more. Luis Valdes, National Spokesperson for Gun Owners of America joins to talk about banks threaten the second Amendment and Supreme Court and Hawaii concealed weapon. Dr. George Hruza, Missouri State Representative District 89 joins the show to talk about socialism and more. Ryan Wiggins, Host of Wiggins America joins to talk about Yahoo releasing the most important cases that the Supreme Court will hear. Plus a song honoring Charlie Kirk.

On Legal Docket, the new term's Supreme Court docket; on Moneybeat, the political brinkmanship in Washington; and on History Book, Jane Goodall's life mission. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, helping entrepreneurs who are looking for more than just funding. Discover a community of Christian faith-led investors. More at ambassadorsimpact.comFrom Cedarville University—a Christ-centered, academically rigorous university located in southwest Ohio, equipping students for Gospel impact across every career and calling. Cedarville integrates a biblical worldview into every course in the more than 175 undergraduate and graduate programs students choose from. New online undergraduate degrees through Cedarville Online offer flexible and affordable education grounded in a strong Christian community that fosters both faith and learning. Learn more at cedarville.edu, and explore online programs at cedarville.edu/onlineAnd from Covenant College, where Christian faculty equip students for their callings through hard ideas, deep questions, and meaningful work. covenant.edu/world

Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could overturn a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protects against racial discrimination. Without it, some legal experts say states and local jurisdictions would be permitted to effectively silence the votes of millions of people.

In 2019, Colorado Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate. That gave them the momentum they needed to push forward an issue that had repeatedly failed in the statehouse under Republicans: a ban on conversion therapy for minors.The law prohibits licensed therapists from trying to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Even though some conservatives strongly opposed it, the law ended up passing with bipartisan support and a few high-profile Republican backers. It wasn't seen as hugely contentious. Now a challenge on the ban has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments are Oct. 7. CPR's Bente Birkeland and CPR's Caitlyn Kim dive into the Colorado law at the center of the case and the legal arguments that will be before the nation's highest court. They also get into how this case is one in a string of challenges to Colorado's LGBTQ protections, all from the same conservative legal powerhouse. Purplish is a finalist for a Signal AwardYou rely on Purplish's reporters to break down the latest developments at the statehouse, in Congress and in local communities — and to find the big picture behind political headlines.Now Purplish is a finalist for a Signal Award, and the team needs your help. Cast your vote to make sure the podcast takes home the Listener's Choice Award in the Local News Show category. Vote here. Thanks for your support!Purplish is produced by CPR News and the Capitol News Alliance, a collaboration between KUNC News, Colorado Public Radio, Rocky Mountain PBS, and The Colorado Sun, and shared with Rocky Mountain Community Radio and other news organizations across the state. Funding for the Alliance is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.Purplish's producer is Stephanie Wolf. This episode was edited by Megan Verlee and Rachel Estabrook, and sound designed and engineered by Shane Rumsey. Theme music is by Brad Turner. Special thanks to WHYY and Fresh Air for this episode.

Can trillions in tariffs be refunded? In this episode of the Shoe-In Show, Matt Priest and Thomas Crockett dive into a landmark Supreme Court case that could reshape U.S. trade policy. They unpack the stakes of the case, explore the possible outcomes, and explain what it could mean for presidential power, economic strategy, and the footwear industry. Most importantly, they share what companies should be doing now to prepare. Tune in for insights into how this decision could ripple across global trade and directly impact your bottom line. Hosted by: Matt Priest, President & CEO, FDRA and Thomas Crockett, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, FDRA

Health Affairs' Jeff Byers welcomes Carmel Shachar of Harvard Law School to the pod to discuss a recent Forefront article she co-authored that broke down the Kennedy v. Braidwood Management case focusing on access to preventive care and how the Supreme Court's framing of the relationship between the HHS Secretary and advisory bodies recommending preventive care might set a precedent worth noting.Join us for these upcoming Insider exclusive events:9/29: Prior Authorization: Current State and Potential Reform10/15: Immigration Policies and Their Impact on Health CareBecome an Insider today to get access to our trend reports, events, and exclusive newsletters.Related Articles:Braidwood's Double-Edged Sword and The Dismantling of Preventive Care (Health Affairs Forefront)Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.Kennedy v. Braidwood: The Supreme Court Upheld ACA Preventive Services but That's Not the End of the Story (KFF)Insurance Coverage Without Cost Sharing for Preventive Health Care Restored by the Supreme Court (JAMA)

Birthright citizenship is a fundamental right that has been enshrined in the Constitution for over 150 years. In the wake of the federal government's assault on this core principle, Assemblymember Alex Lee authored legislation affirming the California Legislature's commitment to birthright citizenship. Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 5 passed the Senate Floor on September 2, and heads to the Assembly Floor for a final vote. On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order to deny citizenship for children of non-citizen parents. The order, which remains blocked by legal challenges, would strip an entire class of people of the right to vote, work lawfully, access federal benefits, and many other basic rights. It is estimated that 153,000 children nationwide, including 24,500 in California, would see their right to citizenship eliminated if the federal government implemented the executive order. “Birthright citizenship is a bedrock of the American Dream,” said Assemblymember Lee. “We cannot let one President and his cronies abuse their federal powers, undo our long-standing civil rights laws, and redefine who becomes a citizen. AJR 5 shows the nation that the California State Legislature is committed to defending birthright citizenship, and the deep-rooted legal precedent set by the landmark Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark.” Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. It ensured those who were formerly enslaved the right to citizenship and states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Decades later, the Supreme Court Case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 affirmed birthright citizenship to all those born in the U.S. During a period of anti-Asian racism, San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark was prohibited from reentering the United States after traveling to China to visit family. Customs agents claimed he was not a citizen because his parents were unable to naturalize and ordered him to be deported. With legal support from the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of San Francisco, he took his case to the Supreme Court and won. In commemoration of the 127th anniversary of the case, AJR 5 honors Wong Kim Ark's fight for the fundamental right of birthright citizenship, and the legacy that he leaves behind. The bill is sponsored by Chinese for Affirmative Action.  

You wouldn't believe the whirlwind the courts have become with Donald Trump at the center stage these past few days. Just as September started, a major moment landed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, struck down Trump's broad use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on nearly all imported goods. The judges ruled that Trump simply didn't have Congressional authority for such sweeping actions, but interestingly enough, the government has until October 14 to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. On September 4, Trump's team went ahead and petitioned for that expedited Supreme Court review, and now the cases are set for arguments in the Supreme Court's early November session, starting November 3, putting Trump's trade legacy directly on the line.But tariffs aren't even the hottest legal fire Trump's grappling with. On Monday, September 8, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out of New York cemented a staggering $83.3 million judgment against Trump for defaming E. Jean Carroll. Carroll, the former magazine columnist, accused Trump of sexual assault dating back to the 1990s, and his public denials—combined with reckless disregard for the truth—landed him in legal jeopardy. The appeals panel wasn't swayed by Trump's efforts to invoke presidential immunity or claim excessive damages. Instead, they declared the jury's awards both fair and reasonable, highlighting how Trump's statements about Carroll, calling her a liar and denying her allegations, were made with, at the very least, reckless disregard. And this follows a separate $5 million jury award Carroll won after Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. Trump's legal team has vowed to push that appeal to the Supreme Court, but for now, the massive judgment stands.Outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court itself is preparing for more Trump-centered drama. Not only are his tariffs and broader powers as the executive on the chopping block—his capacity to ramp up deportations and even send military troops into U.S. cities is now being tested in front of the highest bench. There's real tension over just how much power the President can wield, especially with a Supreme Court super majority that often leans toward a very expansive view of executive authority.Listeners, the wheels of justice are cranking at a furious pace. Court calendars have become minefields, filled with dates, stays, appeals, and new developments erupting almost daily. For Donald Trump, each week seems to bring a fresh legal cliffhanger, with the nation watching every twist and turn. That's it for this wild week in Trump's legal saga. Thank you so much for tuning in. Don't forget to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

What if you discovered you have more religious freedom right now than at any point in your lifetime—but nobody told you? In this episode of Refining Rhetoric, Robert sits down with Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute, to discuss the remarkable string of religious freedom victories at the Supreme Court that most Americans don't even know happened. Shackelford, a constitutional scholar who has argued and won multiple cases before the Supreme Court, breaks down four major religious liberty wins achieved in just 13 months, including the landmark Coach Kennedy case that overturned 50 years of anti-religious precedent. Key topics covered: How the Supreme Court restored religious freedom protections in the workplace and schools What these victories mean for Christians, business owners, and educators Practical guidance on exercising religious rights at work and in public spaces The truth about what pastors can and cannot say from the pulpit regarding politics Why millions of Christian voters staying home could change election outcomes Resources available at FirstLiberty.org for understanding your religious freedom rights Shackelford emphasizes that Americans now have more religious freedom than they've had in their lifetime, but many don't realize the extent of their restored rights. This episode provides essential insights for anyone wanting to understand and exercise their constitutional religious liberties. Resources: https://firstliberty.org/ This episode of Refining Rhetoric is sponsored by the Classical Leanring Cohort: Are you a CC parent or graduate wanting to become a more confident classical educator? Why not sample the CLC by attending a free, online "Experience the CLC" event at classicalconversations.com/cohort. Find a time that fits your schedule.

In this segment, Mark is joined by Sarah Parshall Perry, the Vice President and a Legal Fellow with the group, Defending Education. She just filed an amicus brief in Foote v Ludlow, a case where parents are asking the Supreme Court to protect their daughter from secret social transition at a public school in Massachusetts.

Lawyer and Senior Council at First Liberty, Jordan Lorence, joins host Casey Harper to discuss the ever-growing list of religious liberty and freedom of speech cases the U.S. courts are seeing. Jordan unpacks four big U.S. Supreme Court Cases that we can expect to see in the next round of rulings and offers advice on how to best handle first amendment cases.

Lawyer and Senior Council at First Liberty, Jordan Lorence, joins host Casey Harper to discuss the ever-growing list of religious liberty and freedom of speech cases the U.S. courts are seeing. Jordan unpacks four big U.S. Supreme Court Cases that we can expect to see in the next round of rulings and offers advice on how to best handle first amendment cases.

Just days ago, Donald Trump was standing before the press in Washington, defiant as ever, with flashing cameras capturing every word. The timing couldn't be more consequential. On August 15th, as Trump spoke flanked by law enforcement officials, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was handing down a new motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in one of the most closely watched cases against him. The District's legal team argued for immediate intervention, referencing statements Trump had made at his press conference and linking them directly to their emergency application. That turbulent morning, as crowds gathered outside the courthouse, the air was thick with anticipation over what the court's swift action might mean for the former president and his legal team.Beyond Washington, the legal action was unfolding in California too. In Thakur v. Trump et al., a hearing scheduled for August 26th will determine whether the preliminary injunction against Trump's administration will be extended to a wider, provisionally certified class. This case is emblematic of the sweeping litigation Trump faces as plaintiffs challenge many of his executive actions, especially concerning national security and government oversight. Earlier this month, the Northern District Court held an order to show cause hearing related to the suspension of National Science Foundation grants, another issue tangentially tied to Trump's time in office and the repercussions that continue to reverberate across agencies.The Litigation Tracker managed by Lawfare details something staggering: more than two hundred ninety-eight active cases challenging Trump administration actions are currently still open, with some pushing all the way up to the Supreme Court. Judges have swung both ways—some ruling for the federal government, others against—while legal teams scramble to keep pace. The swirl of litigation encompasses issues big and small, from immigration enforcement to broader questions about executive authority and agency shutdowns.One of the hottest topics right now has centered on Trump's prerogative to force sweeping personnel changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On August 18th, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals cleared the Trump administration to resume its plan to fire more than fourteen hundred CFPB employees, a move that union groups fiercely opposed. While Judge Gregory Katsas—himself appointed by Trump—wrote that there's no legal foundation to claim the administration is shutting down the agency entirely, dissenting voices like Judge Cornelia Pillard have vigorously challenged that narrative, insisting the courts must intervene if an agency's existence is being imperiled.Throughout all of this, Trump's legal team has remained on war footing, acutely aware that each courtroom drama carries not just legal ramifications but political ones. As these proceedings continue to snake through the judicial system, every decision, dissent, and order is watched with hawk-like intensity—not just by Trump's allies and critics, but by the nation at large.Thanks for tuning in, everyone. Be sure to come back next week for deeper dives and the latest updates. This has been a Quiet Please production—check out Quiet Please Dot A I for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Lawyer and Senior Council at First Liberty, Jordan Lorence, joins host Casey Harper to discuss the ever-growing list of religious liberty and freedom of speech cases the U.S. courts are seeing. Jordan unpacks four big U.S. Supreme Court Cases that we can expect to see in the next round of rulings and offers advice on how to best handle first amendment cases.

In today's episode of the Center for Baptist Leadership podcast, William Wolfe sits down with Mathew Staver, Senior Pastor, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, to discuss if the Supreme Court Case which sanctioned same-sex marriages, Obergefell v. Hodges, will be overturned? Mat Staver serves as Senior Pastor, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat has over 300 published legal opinions. He authored eight scholarly law review publications, many booklets and brochures, hundreds of articles and numerous books, including Why Israel Matters, Faith & Freedom: A Complete Handbook for Defending Your Religious Rights, Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk, and Eternal Vigilance: Knowing and Protecting Your Religious Freedom. Mat is the host and producer of Faith and Freedom podcast/radio program and Freedom's Call radio program.   Learn more about Mathew Staver's work: https://lc.org/mat-staver https://x.com/LibertyCounsel   ––––––   Follow Center for Baptist Leadership across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://twitter.com/BaptistLeaders Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/people/Center-For-Baptist-Leadership/61556762144277/ Rumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-6157089 YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@CenterforBaptistLeadership Website – https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/   To book William for media appearances or speaking engagements, please contact him at media@centerfor­baptistleadership.org.   Follow Us on Twitter: William Wolfe - https://twitter.com/William_E_Wolfe Richard Henry - https://twitter.com/RThenry83   Renew the SBC from within and defend the SBC from those who seek its destruction, donate today: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/donate/   The Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast is powered by American Reformer, recorded remotely in the United States by William Wolfe, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to the Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast: Distribute our RSS Feed – https://centerforbaptistleadership.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/id1743074575 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/0npXohTYKWYmWLsHkalF9t Amazon Music // Audible – https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ababbdd-6c6b-4ab9-b21a-eed951e1e67b BoomPlay – https://www.boomplaymusic.com/podcasts/96624 TuneIn – Coming Soon iHeartRadio – https://iheart.com/podcast/170321203 Listen Notes – https://lnns.co/2Br0hw7p5R4 Pandora – Coming Soon PlayerFM – https://player.fm/series/3570081 Podchaser – https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-center-for-baptist-leaders-5696654 YouTube Podcasts – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFMvfuzJKMICA7wi3CXvQxdNtA_lqDFV

One of the surprising aspects of the American electoral system is that while regular gerrymandering is frowned upon, racial gerrymandering is actually required by law. Meaning that if you redraw a congressional district to benefit your political party, you might get criticized for it, but that's about all. Under certain circumstances, however, if you redraw a state's congressional districts and don't go out of your way to give more weight to minorities, then that is actually illegal. Essentially, states have to consider race when apportioning their congressional districts.At least, they have to for now—because it looks like the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to change this soon.Let's go through the details together.

In just the past week, the legal battles swirling around Donald Trump have reached a new level of intensity, drawing the nation's attention back to a courthouse drama that seems never-ending. On July 23, the Supreme Court stepped in yet again—this time granting the Trump administration's emergency request for a stay in Trump v. Boyle. The decision, delivered without a full briefing or oral argument, reflected a split on the bench, with Justice Kagan writing in dissent. The outcome means the administration can press ahead with removing federal officials—part of a broader campaign by Trump's White House to reshape the executive branch and its agencies. This is happening as the judiciary weighs a surge of legal challenges, not just to Trump personally, but to the policies he's enacted since returning to office.Just before that, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on July 9, clearing the way for President Trump to push forward with plans for dramatic reductions in the federal workforce. According to SCOTUSblog, this order lets agencies initiate what Trump described as “large-scale reductions in force”—RIFs—across government. The move came even as lower courts had temporarily blocked it, citing the risk of irreversible damage. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in her dissent, warning of “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.” Labor unions and advocacy groups vow to keep fighting the order in court, but for now, the Trump administration has the green light.Meanwhile, in New York, the repercussions of Trump's criminal conviction are still rippling outward. The New York Unified Court System's January 2025 audio and filings document the intensity of those final courtroom moments. There's an active appeals process challenging both the verdict and orders in the high-profile Manhattan case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, as well as appeals stemming from the related Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecution. Despite Trump's attempts to move proceedings to federal court and to dismiss charges on procedural grounds, those efforts have been repeatedly denied. The appeals now move forward on a consolidated docket, setting up a pivotal next chapter.On multiple fronts, Trump's team is locked in appellate battles not only over the handling of state cases but also the fallout from the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. After Justice Engoron's major summary judgment and subsequent damages order, both sides are set for a protracted fight in the Appellate Division, which could bring new revelations and risks for Trump's business empire.Layered atop all this is the stream of litigation documented by the Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which notes nearly 300 cases still winding their way through the courts—many challenging executive actions and personnel moves made in Trump's second term. Judges across the country are being asked to rule on the bounds of presidential discretion, the reach of federal courts, and the meaning of separation of powers, as the nation watches with no clear sense of when it all will settle.Thank you for tuning in and staying informed on these unprecedented court battles. Come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Send us a textThis week in our Summer School series, we're revisiting a landmark case that forever reshaped HR law and workplace culture: Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. Originally aired in May 2021, this powerful episode unpacks the story of Mechelle Vinson, whose harrowing experiences led the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize hostile work environment sexual harassment as a form of discrimination under Title VII.Join us as we walk through how a young bank teller's lawsuit not only challenged her employer but set a precedent that still guides HR investigations, policies, and training today. Whether you're an HR professional, a business owner, or just passionate about employment law, this is a must-listen episode that shows why understanding the past is essential to shaping a safer workplace for all. Visit TeamAtHRStories.com to see all of our workshops and offerings to help you feel confident in your HR decisions. Support the showOur new book...The Ultimate Guide to HR: Checklists Edition is now AVAILABLE! Go to UltimateGuidetoHR.com to Get HR Right: and Avoid Costly Mistakes. Certified and approved for 3 SHRM Recertification Credits.Join the HR Team of One Community on Facebook or visit TeamAtHRstories.com and sign up for emails so you can be the first to know about new things we have coming up.You can also follow us on Instagram and TikTok at @HRstoriesPodcast Don't forget to rate our podcast, it really helps other people find it!Do you have a situation or topic you'd like the team to discuss? Are you interested in having Chuck or John talk to your team or Emcee your event? You can reach the Team at Email@TeamAtHRStories.com for suggestions and inquiries.The viewpoints expressed by the characters in the stories are not necessarily that of The Team at HR Stories. The stories are shared to present various, real-world scenarios and share how they were handled by policy and, at times, law. Chuck and John are not lawyers and always recommend working with an employment lawyer to address concerns.

Can sexual attraction shift? Can we rewire how past trauma affects us?Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Jr. explores these questions through Reintegrative Therapy—a trauma-focused, evidence-based approach designed for those experiencing unwanted sexual attractions. Critics label it "conversion therapy," but Nicolosi argues it's something entirely different.In this episode, he explains how resolving deep-rooted trauma can sometimes lead to changes in sexual attractions and why this method is so controversial in today's world. As the son of a pioneering psychologist, Dr. Nicolosi brings decades of clinical insight to a conversation that challenges post-modern cultural taboos and common assumptions.Dr Nicolosi's website: https://www.reintegrativetherapy.com/NEW: Join our exclusive Rose Report community! https://lilaroseshow.supercast.com - We'll have BTS footage, ad-free episodes, monthly AMA, and early access to our upcoming guests.A big thanks to our partner, EWTN, the world's leading Catholic network! Discover news, entertainment and more at https://www.ewtn.com/ Check out our Sponsors:-Nimi Skincare: The best skincare—and it aligns with your values. Use code LILA for 15% off https://www.nimiskincare.com/discount/LILA?redirect=%2Fcollections%2Fall-products-Covenant Eyes: http://covenanteyes.sjv.io/Kjngb9 Sign up to grow in purity and gain traction over sexual addiction: use code “LILA” for a free month!-EveryLife: https://www.everylife.com Buy diapers from an amazing pro-life diaper company and use code LILA and get 10% off!00:00 - Intro00:02:48 - Dr Nicolosi Sr's Groundbreaking Work13:39 - Nimi Skin Care14:45 - Can people shift their attractions and desires?24:48 - Covenant Eyes25:52 - Monogamy and Homosexuality33:23 - EveryLife34:23 - Causes of SSA00:46:17 - Temperaments and SSA00:49:08 - “Unwanted” SSA and Re-wiring the Brain00:53:02 - APA pretends not to acknowledge the data00:57:03 - Sexual Ab*se Patterns in patients 01:02:36 - People who therapy didn't work?01:06:17 - Trevor Project and Su*cidality01:14:02 - Supreme Court Case

In this video I give an important update on the suppressor and SBR efforts to end the NFA after Congress recently passed new changes to the NFA!Free Legal Survival Guide: https://go.armedscholar.com/legalsurvivalguideArmory Channel:    / @armedscholararmory  

From Skrmetti to Medina to Mahmoud, the Supreme Court has been busy issuing devastating rulings on cases that carry profound implications for LGBTQI+ health and rights and reproductive health and rights. Chris Geidner, author of Law Dork, sits down to talk with us about these recent cases out of the Supreme Court, and what these rulings mean for our rights and wellbeing.United States v. Skrmetti was a challenge of Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which prohibits gender-affirming care for transgender minors. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the state's ban on gender- affirming care for transgender minors. Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic was another case heard this term—in fact, it was a culmination of decades of attacks to Planned Parenthood and other providers, specifically targeting efforts to kick these providers out of Medicaid. In another devastating 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court sided against reproductive health care. Mahmoud v. Taylor was a case related to LGBTQI+ inclusive textbooks in Maryland. If parents had a religious objection to anything in the curriculum, they fought to exempt their children from the lesson. By a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled in favor of the Maryland parents. Lastly, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management Inc. upheld a key Affordable Care Act provision requiring health insurance companies to cover certain care cost-free, but also allows the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services –Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—more autonomy to reshape the provision.For more information, check out Aborsh: https://www.aborsh.com/Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

If a Christian view of law is spiritual and covenantal, what does that look like when arguing before the United States Supreme Court? Today, David looks at the approaches taken by two different Christian camps in United States v. Skrmetti that addressed the constitutionality of Tennessee's law prohibiting medical treatments for a minor's gender dysphoria. The two represent two different cosmologies, not just different legal arguments!

If a Christian view of law is spiritual and covenantal, what does that look like when arguing before the United States Supreme Court? Today, David looks at the approaches taken by two different Christian camps in United States v. Skrmetti that addressed the constitutionality of Tennessee’s law prohibiting medical treatments for a minor’s gender dysphoria. The two approaches represent two different cosmologies, not just different legal arguments!Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch Barb McQuade hosts #SistersInLaw to lay out the legal implications of the growing political violence in the country and call upon leaders in both parties to take a strong stand against it.  Then, the #Sisters examine the alarming arrests of Democratic lawmakers and investigate whether their civil rights were violated, weighing what it says about the state of our democracy.  They also discuss the ABA's lawsuit against the Trump administration and explain how it seeks to preserve the independence of the legal system, as well as break down the slew of recent actions by the courts. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky #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 Register for Barb's 6/3 book talk in New York (with Loretta Lynch!) 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.  Mentioned by the #Sisters Recommended By Jill:  My Daughter Was at the Center of the Supreme Court Case on Trans Care. Our Hearts Are Broken Political Violence Came to Minnesota. It Didn't Start There. Support This Week's Sponsors Mixtiles: Get 35% off on all orders above $139 @Mixtiles with code SIL at https://www.mixtiles.com/SIL #Mixtilespod 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 Calm: Perfect your meditation practice and get better sleep with 40% off a premium subscription when you go to calm.com/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 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

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, joins Father Jack to discuss the Institute's recent involvement in a major Supreme Court case on counseling freedom. She explains the arguments behind their amicus brief challenging Colorado's ban on “conversion therapy” and highlights the broader implications for free speech, religious liberty, and therapeutic choice. Dr. Morse also takes a critical look at the Trevor Project, a well-funded LGBTQ youth organization, raising concerns about its influence, federal funding, and online platforms. Tune in for a compelling conversation about the intersection of law, culture, and the future of family advocacy. Resources Mentioned: Ruth Institute: www.ruthinstitute.org Ruth Institute YouTube Channel Key Points: 1. Supreme Court Case and Amicus Brief: Dr. Morse and the Ruth Institute filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case challenging a Colorado law banning so-called "conversion therapy." The brief was submitted under the title “Brief of Sexual Orientation Scholars in Support of Petitioners.” The case involves a Christian therapist claiming the law restricts her religious and professional freedom. The Ruth Institute argues that bans on such therapy suppress alternative therapeutic approaches and violate rights of both therapists and clients. Father Paul Sullins provided statistical critiques in the brief, and Morse contributed case studies and analysis questioning assumptions about sexuality, including the claim that people are “born gay.” 2. Critique of the Trevor Project: Morse criticizes the Trevor Project, a suicide prevention group for LGBTQ youth, claiming it is ideologically biased and heavily funded. She notes that YouTube links the Trevor Project to content critical of LGBTQ identities, labeling alternatives like conversion therapy as harmful. Morse supports the Trump administration's decision to withdraw federal funding from the Trevor Project, redirecting it to general suicide prevention efforts. Concerns were raised about the Trevor Project's online community features, which critics have described as vulnerable to abuse. Morse references critiques from “Gays Against Groomers” and the California Family Council. 3. Underlying Themes: The conversation strongly critiques mainstream LGBTQ support structures and what Morse and the Ruth Institute view as coercive or ideologically driven policies. Emphasis is placed on the rights of therapists and clients to explore identity and trauma without mandated affirming approaches.

This week marked a decisive victory in protecting minors from harmful gender transition procedures. The Supreme Court justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the Tennessee law banning healthcare providers from prescribing medication or performing procedures on minors to “transition” to an identity opposite of their biological sex. The protection of minors from harmful “gender transition” surgeries and interventions is good and appropriate. Furthermore, states have a constitutional responsibility to protect children from harm. Because of this, the ERLC advocated against such procedures, and filed an amicus brief alongside the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board in favor of the Tennessee lawmakers and the protection of children. Before the ruling was released, we talked about the importance of this case with Matt Sharp, who serves as senior counsel and director of the Center for Public Policy at Alliance Defending Freedom. Sharp earned his J.D. in 2006 from the Vanderbilt University School of Law. Since joining ADF in 2010, Sharp has authored federal and state legislation, regularly provides testimony and legal analysis on how proposed legislation will impact constitutional freedoms, and advises governors, legislators, and state and national policy organizations on the importance of laws and policies that protect First Amendment rights. 

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. Supreme Court Takes Up Trump's Citizenship and Injunction Fight – The justices hear arguments in Trump v. CASA, Inc., tackling whether birthright citizenship can be ended via executive order and whether lower-court judges can issue sweeping “universal injunctions.” The outcome could reshape immigration law and presidential authority. California's Budget Busted by Illegal Immigration – Governor Newsom proposes rolling back healthcare for illegal aliens after costs skyrocket beyond $9.5B. Democrats revolt, accusing him of betraying progressive values, even as the state faces a $12B budget hole. Trump Scores Win on Alien Enemies Act as Deportation System Exposed – A federal judge allows the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members, though with more due process than Trump sought. Bryan walks through the current deportation process and why it could take 60+ years to remove Biden-era migrants. China's Inverters Could Cripple the U.S. Grid – Reuters uncovers hidden sabotage tools inside Chinese-made solar and EV inverters. These embedded devices could allow Beijing to shut down U.S. power infrastructure at will. Bryan explains why this, along with China's defiance on fentanyl, proves “strategic decoupling” isn't enough. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." – John 8:32

On Legal Docket, religious protections for ministry work; on Moneybeat, why the trade war isn't over; and on History Book, small town teens challenge a dancing ban. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate.Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network. Helping purpose-driven entrepreneurs explore financing options that align with their values. More at ambassadorsimpact.comAnd from Pensacola Christian College. Academic excellence, biblical worldview, affordable cost. go.pcci.edu/world