Podcasts about third circuit

Joe LoPorto, NRA-ILA State Director, and GOAL's own Mike Harris join in to talk about the big decision out of the Third Circuit, local cases and news, Supreme Court, and more

This edWeb podcast is part of a series of WebBriefs hosted by The Alliance of Former Chief State School Officers.The meeting recording can be accessed here.Join us for an engaging and educational edWeb podcast, hosted by the Alliance of Former Chief State School Officers, with Appellate Judge Marjorie Rendell, who discusses three recent Supreme Court cases of her choosing and offers insight into how appellate judges approach important legal questions.This nonpartisan event is designed to give listeners a clearer understanding of current developments in the law, the reasoning behind judicial decisions, and the value of thoughtful public dialogue, while providing a rare opportunity to hear directly from the bench about how major legal issues are analyzed and how recent decisions may shape the broader legal landscape.Learn more about viewing live edWeb presentations and on-demand recordings, earning CE certificates, and using accessibility features.

The Third Circuit delivers a landmark victory against New Jersey's gun bans. Rob Pincus joins Mark Walters to explain what the ruling means, why gun shops are divided, and how this decision could reshape Second Amendment rights nationwide.

Episode 2861 - In this wide-ranging episode, Ted and Austin Broer connect the Third Circuit's New Jersey semi-automatic rifle ban ruling, Russian insider warnings about a potential false flag escalation to global conflict, smart bassinet surveillance data collection, the $160 to $170 billion Iran conflict economic cost, a two-week sugar elimination weight loss protocol, private jet tracking as a disaster indicator, the Supreme Court's rejection of Hawaii's concealed carry restrictions, and Spain's extreme heatwave hydration advisory into a broadcast that delivers both urgent legal and health guidance alongside sharp geopolitical and surveillance accountability. 

Daniel Schmutter, lead counsel for the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs in its challenge to New Jersey's "assault weapon" and magazine ban, joins Cam to share his take on the Third Circuit decision striking down the ban, as well as what happens next.

This week, a major decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has sent shockwaves through the gun control debate. The ruling, written by a Biden appointee, has significant implications for Colorado's new gun laws, which took effect on July 1. The speaker breaks down the key points of the decision and what it means for the Centennial State. The Third Circuit's ruling struck down New Jersey's ban on semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines, citing the Second Amendment. The decision is a major victory for gun rights advocates, and it's likely to have a ripple effect on other states with similar laws. Colorado's new gun laws, including a permit-to-purchase scheme and ammunition restrictions, are now under scrutiny. The speaker explains how the Third Circuit's decision could impact these laws and what it means for gun owners in Colorado. The ruling is significant because it establishes a new framework for evaluating gun control laws. The Third Circuit's decision emphasizes the importance of historical analogies and the Founding Era when interpreting the Second Amendment. This approach could be a game-changer for gun rights advocates, who argue that many of Colorado's new laws are unconstitutional. The speaker walks listeners through the key points of the decision and what it means for Colorado's gun laws. If you're interested in understanding the implications of this major decision, tune in to this episode to learn more about the Third Circuit's ruling and what it means for Colorado's gun laws. The speaker breaks down the key points and provides context for this critical issue.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this  installment of the Gutowski Files we sit down with investigative reporter Stephen Gutowski of thereload.com and discuss a recent ruling out of the Third Circuit Court Of Appeals overturning New Jersey's ban on AR style rifles and high capacity magazines and how it might affect a case currently before the Supreme Court . Active Self Protection exists to help good, sane, sober, moral, prudent people in all walks of life to more effectively protect themselves and their loved ones from criminal violence. On the ASP Podcast you will hear the true stories of life or death self defense encounters from the men and women that lived them. If you are interested in the Second Amendment, self defense and defensive firearms use, martial arts or the use of less lethal tools used in the real world to defend life and family, you will find this show riveting.  Join host and career federal agent Mike Willever as he talks to real life survivors and hear their stories in depth. You'll hear about these incidents and the self defenders from well before the encounter occurred on through the legal and emotional aftermath. Music: bensound.com

The Third Circuit delivers a major Second Amendment victory, striking down New Jersey's gun and magazine bans. Dr. John Lott joins Mark Walters to explain what this means for Heller, Bruen, Justice Barrett, and the Supreme Court's historic upcoming gun ban cases.

Florida Sheriff Kurt Hoffman publicly questions the arrest of a law-abiding gun owner while Cam Edwards breaks down the historic Third Circuit ruling that could reshape the future of America's Second Amendment rights

The Armed American Radio Roundtable analyzes the biggest week for gun rights in decades, breaking down the Third Circuit decision, upcoming Supreme Court battles, and what comes next for the Second Amendment movement.

The Third Circuit delivers one of the biggest Second Amendment victories since Bruen. NRA-ILA's John Commerford and constitutional attorney Mark Smith explain why New Jersey's rifle and magazine bans were struck down—and what it means for the Supreme Court next.

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford joins Cam to discuss the big win in the Third Circuit striking down New Jersey's ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

People keep saying the same thing about the Charlie Kirk shooting: there is no way a 30-06 rifle round leaves no exit wound, so something does not add up. Michael and Dakota take that claim apart with something most of the internet skipped over, the actual ammunition. It was a common Remington soft-point hunting round, designed to expand and stop inside the target instead of punching straight through. And there is a piece of history almost nobody remembers: Martin Luther King Jr. was killed the same way, a single 30-06, no exit wound. This is the calm, informed breakdown you can send to the person in your feed who is sure they have it figured out. From there the show opens up. A federal appeals court struck down key parts of New Jersey's assault weapons ban and magazine limit while the crew was recording, so they covered it live. Jon Fleischman, a four-decade veteran of California politics, joins to explain how the gun vote actually moves a politician and what makes an advocate valuable instead of taken for granted. Then a big win for young adults in Florida, and a full Q&A on the Wolford decision, SB2 sensitive places, the two assault-weapon cases the Supreme Court just agreed to hear, and how to get your concealed carry permit without falling for the "50-state CCW" scam. If you care about the Second Amendment, honest ballistics, California gun laws, and self-defense without the fear and outrage, this one is for you. Chapters: 0:00 - Welcome, and a co-host intro from Dakota 1:20 - What is on: Alisha's gun-cleaning class (July 29) and John Baldwin's Tactical Comms class (Aug 15, Oceanside) 5:09 - The Charlie Kirk myth: why "no exit wound" is not proof of a conspiracy, and the Martin Luther King parallel 13:53 - A 10-time felon gets 10 years: why gun laws trip up the law-abiding, not criminals 18:41 - Red flag laws and due process: where Dakota draws the line 26:02 - Breaking: the Third Circuit strikes down New Jersey's assault weapons and magazine ban 39:28 - Jon Fleischman: the gun vote, the litmus test, and how to actually move a politician 1:14:30 - Florida win: 18-to-20-year-olds get the right to carry (State v. Eubanks) 1:26:35 - Q&A: Wolford and the "vampire rule," SB2 sensitive places, the two Supreme Court assault-weapon cases, and how to get your CCW 2:03:21 - Dakota's closing story: a grandmother stops her own carjacking Chapters are approximate and shift once the intro or cold-open is added in post.)

Send us Fan MailIn a well-though-out decision by the 3rd Circuit Court, New Jersey's "Assault Weapons" ban gets knocked out with a one-two punch of Bruen and Heller!AI cameras are being used to target those carrying firearms, including peaceable citizens, and this does not bode well for individual liberty.Direct link to BillMick.com for some common sense, uncommon radio: Bill Mick LIVE - WMMB-AMBill Mick Live!Tune in every weekday morning from 06:00-09:00 EST for some common sense, uncommon radio!Freedom GunsFirearms, Ammunition, Accessories, Training classes Sicarios Gun ShopFirearms, Accessories, Ammo, Safes, and more!The Gun Site9-Lane 25 yard indoor Shooting Range, Gun Store, Training classesSHOOTINGCLASSES.COMOnline business operations platform for firearms instructors, trainees, and Shooting RangesWJS GunsGun and Outdoor Shop, ammo, accessories, fishing tackle, moreCounter Strike TacticalBest Little Gun Store in Melbourne, Florida! Veteran Owned and Operated 321-499-4949Go2 WeaponsManufacturers of AR platform rifles for military and civilian. Veteran Owned and OperatedEar Care of MelbourneNeed hearing aids? Go to the audiologists that gave Royce his hearing back!Glover Orndorf and Flanagan Wealth Mgmt.Wealth management servicesQuantified PerformanceQuantified Performance, LLC is focused on building safe, high performing keepers and bearers.Control Jiu-Jitsu/MMAJiu-Jitsu/MMA Training in Melbourne, FLDisclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showThe Watch Floor - YouTubeAskari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)

This Day in Legal History: The Declaration of SentimentsOn July 20, 1848, at the close of the two-day Seneca Falls Convention in upstate New York, roughly a hundred people signed the Declaration of Sentiments—the founding document of the organized women's rights movement in the United States. Drafted principally by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it was a deliberate and pointed act of legal argument: Stanton modeled it on the Declaration of Independence, echoing Jefferson's cadences but adding two words that changed everything—”that all men and women are created equal.”The genius of the document was to take the nation's own founding logic and turn it on the exclusion of half the population. It then catalogued, in the form of a bill of particulars against “man” rather than King George, the specific legal disabilities women lived under. Married women had no right to their own property or wages—under the common-law doctrine of coverture, a wife's legal identity was absorbed into her husband's. Women could not vote, were barred from most professions and higher education, had almost no rights to their own children in the event of separation, and were governed by laws they had no voice in making. The Declaration listed these as concrete legal grievances, not vague complaints, framing the denial of women's rights as a violation of the country's stated principles.The most controversial demand was the resolution calling for women's suffrage, which passed only narrowly and with the public support of Frederick Douglass, who attended the convention. The significance of July 20, 1848 is that it launched a legal and political campaign that would take seventy-two years to win the vote, with the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, and far longer to dismantle coverture and the web of laws built on women's legal subordination. It's a reminder that constitutional principles are not self-executing—that “all men are created equal” had to be argued, expanded, and fought for by the people the original text left out.A federal appeals court has struck down New Jersey's ban on assault firearms and high-capacity magazines, the first time any federal appeals court has invalidated a state assault-weapons ban. Sitting en banc, the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit ruled 10-5 that the state's prohibition on semi-automatic rifles—not just AR-15s, but the whole category—violates the Second Amendment, as does its ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. The reasoning flows from the Supreme Court's recent framework, which asks whether a gun regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation; the majority concluded these bans are not. What makes this a genuinely big deal is the split it creates. Just last week, a different federal appeals court upheld Illinois's ban on semi-automatic weapons—so we now have appeals courts squarely disagreeing on whether these bans are constitutional. That kind of circuit split is precisely the condition that draws the Supreme Court in, and the Court is already poised to take up whether bans on semi-automatic rifles violate the Second Amendment. The significance is that a question affecting roughly a dozen states with similar laws is now barreling toward a definitive answer. For the moment, New Jersey's ban is unenforceable as to these weapons, but the durability of that outcome—and of assault-weapons bans nationwide—now depends on what the Supreme Court does next.US appeals court declares New Jersey's ban on assault rifles unconstitutional | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration cannot rely on a White House budget-office regulation to cancel billions of dollars in grants simply because those grants no longer match its priorities. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston sided with a coalition of Democratic-led states, rejecting the administration's claim that a clause in Office of Management and Budget regulations gave it authority to revoke funding whenever an agency's focus shifts. Here's the underlying principle. When Congress appropriates money for a program and an agency awards grants under it, the government generally can't just take that money back on a whim—grant recipients have relied on it, and the terms for termination are limited. The administration's theory was that an OMB regulation let it terminate grants it deemed “inconsistent with agency priorities,” effectively a roving power to defund causes it disfavors. Judge Talwani found the regulation didn't authorize anything of the kind. The significance connects to a theme we keep returning to: the limits of executive power over money that Congress has already directed. The administration has repeatedly tried to redirect or withhold funds to reshape policy without going through Congress, and courts have repeatedly pushed back. This ruling reinforces that a president's control over federal spending, though real, is bounded—an agency can't retroactively pull grants just because political priorities changed.Trump administration cannot cancel grants for disfavored causes, US judge rules | ReutersA federal judge has declined to block Meta from laying off 26 employees who claim the company's AI tools singled them out for termination because they have disabilities or took medical leave. U.S. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland ruled that the workers hadn't shown the “irreparable harm” needed for an emergency order halting the layoffs, which are set to begin July 22, and that the merits of their novel claims will be decided in private arbitration. The allegations are striking. The plaintiffs—engineers, managers, researchers, and designers suing anonymously—say Meta used a suite of internal AI systems to score and rank employees onto a termination list, including an assistant called “Metamate,” an employee-trained “second brain” that tracked workers' communications, and a productivity score drawn from scanning keystrokes, screen content, emails, and browser history. Meta denies wrongdoing and insists humans, not algorithms, made the layoff decisions. This is a frontier legal question: when an employer uses AI to help decide who gets cut, and those tools allegedly disadvantage people with disabilities or on leave, is that illegal discrimination? The judge's refusal to block the layoffs was procedural—losing a job usually isn't “irreparable” because money damages can fix it—but he pointedly noted the case raises “serious questions” and said he might reconsider based on more evidence about how AI was actually used. The significance is that algorithmic management is colliding with anti-discrimination law, and courts are just beginning to work out who's accountable when the machine does the ranking.US judge won't block Meta from laying off workers who filed AI discrimination lawsuit | ReutersAnd finally, the IRS's top lawyer has been forced out after refusing White House demands that would have drawn him into tax audits of particular taxpayers. Ken Kies, who served as the agency's acting chief counsel and as Treasury's assistant secretary for tax policy, told administration officials their requests would violate a federal law that bars the president, the vice president, and other White House officials from ordering the IRS to conduct or terminate an audit of any specific taxpayer. That statute is a direct legacy of Watergate-era abuses, when presidents tried to sic the tax agency on their enemies, and tax professionals regard it as the single most important safeguard against weaponizing the tax code. Kies apparently stood on that law—and lost his job for it. The story connects directly to one we covered recently: the administration's $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” settlement that would have given the president and his family immunity from IRS audits, which a federal judge struck down as a collusive arrangement with no basis in law. The significance is about the fragile independence of tax administration. The protections that keep audits free from political direction only work if the officials inside the agency are willing to enforce them—and when the person who says “no” to an unlawful demand is pushed out, it sends a chilling message to everyone who remains. Top US tax lawyer forced out after White House clash over tax audits | 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

In This Hour:--  All-copper bullets for hunting aren't new, but they are now being widely accepted.  Jeff Hoffman from Black Hills Ammunition reveals what he has learned in their ballistic lab.--  The ban on AR-15 rifles in New Jersey had been crushed by the Third Circuit.  Mark Smith from the Four Boxes Diner does a deep dive into the decision and what it means.--  Realistic preparation for hunting seasons.Gun Talk 07.19.26 Hour 1Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

In this week's episode of the Empowering Plans podcast, attorneys Brady Bizarro and Brian O'Hara break down the Third Circuit's recent decision in Ahn v. Cigna and what it means for ERISA preemption and explanation of benefits (EOB) language.

Religious Freedom: May religious organizations be exempted from providing contraception coverage? - Argued: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 15:58:19 EDT

Intellectual Property: Does it violate copyright to train an artificial intelligence model on case headnotes? - Argued: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:53:50 EDT

In this episode, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, retired, honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center, joins to discuss The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals, a new keepsake volume from the National Constitution Center. Justice Breyer, who wrote the book's foreword, reflects on the enduring constitutional ideals explored in the volume and their continued relevance today. He is joined by the Honorable Cheryl Ann Krause, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and member of the National Constitution Center Board of Trustees.  This conversation was streamed live from Philadelphia as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall series on May 16, 2026.  Resources   The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals  Justice Stephen G. Breyer, “It's up to us whether the American experiment succeeds,” (USA Today, May 11, 2026)  Justice Neil Gorsuch, “How Imperfect People Form a More Perfect Union,” (Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026)  Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals: A Conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer , National Constitution Center, America's Town Hall  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Administrative Law: May the President order the removal of plaques recognizing slavery from the President's House historical site without consulting Philadelphia? - Argued: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 15:34:16 EDT

This Day in Legal History: The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924On this day in 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act, also called the Snyder Act, declaring that all Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States were U.S. citizens. It is one of those laws that sounds, in retrospect, like it cannot possibly have been necessary — and yet it was. For most of the country's first 150 years, the federal government treated Native people as members of separate sovereign nations whose status under American law was, at best, ambiguous. Earlier vehicles for citizenship — the Fourteenth Amendment, the Dawes Act, military service in World War I — had reached only some Native people, and a string of Supreme Court decisions had taken the position that being born inside the United States to a member of a tribe did not, on its own, make a person a citizen.The Snyder Act fixed that with a single sentence.What it did not fix was voting: many states continued to bar Native citizens from the ballot for decades afterward, on a variety of pretexts that were eventually struck down one by one. The Act also did not affect tribal citizenship — Native people are dual citizens of their tribe and the United States, which is part of why federal Indian law continues to occupy a separate doctrinal universe. June 2 is a quietly important date on the calendar of American citizenship, and a reminder that the seemingly obvious questions of who counts as an American have, for long stretches of our history, not been obvious at all.Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced Monday that his office has filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, arguing that the company is misleading parents about the safety of ChatGPT and pointing to incidents in which young users were allegedly nudged toward violence by the chatbot. The complaint follows a criminal investigation Uthmeier's office opened in April, after a deadly mass shooting at Florida State University in 2025 that the AG says ChatGPT helped facilitate. Florida is asking for civil penalties and an order forcing OpenAI to redesign the product, including adding meaningful parental controls.The legal angle here is essentially a state consumer-protection theory: a state attorney general claiming that the company's marketing of a product as safe-for-kids is deceptive, and that the company is therefore on the hook under the state's unfair-trade laws. Whether that survives a motion to dismiss is going to depend a lot on whether the court treats ChatGPT as a “product” in the traditional sense — software has, for decades, gotten more leeway than physical products under product-liability law, and Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act has historically immunized platforms for what users post.The new wrinkle is that generative AI doesn't fit neatly into either bucket — ChatGPT produces its own output rather than hosting somebody else's — and several courts are now beginning to grapple with that distinction. Expect this case to be one of the early test cases for how AI companies get sued in the U.S.Florida AG Sues OpenAI, Says ChatGPT Spurs Violence | Law360The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from asbestos victims who had challenged a corporate bankruptcy tactic known as the “Texas Two-Step” — leaving in place a Fourth Circuit ruling that lets companies use the maneuver to corral mass-tort claims into bankruptcy court.The Two-Step works like this: a healthy company splits itself into two using a Texas state-law provision that allows divisional mergers, dumps its asbestos or talc or opioid liabilities into the newly created spinoff, and then puts only the spinoff into Chapter 11. The result is that injury claimants get herded into a bankruptcy proceeding where their leverage is sharply limited, even though the parent company that actually caused the harm is still solvent and operating.The case the Supreme Court turned away involved Bestwall, a spinoff of Georgia-Pacific that has been in Chapter 11 since 2017. The Third Circuit threw out a similar Johnson & Johnson talc-unit bankruptcy in 2023 on the ground that the spinoff wasn't actually in financial distress, but the Fourth Circuit went the other way in this case, and the Supreme Court's denial of review leaves that split standing for now. The bigger picture: a powerful settlement-shaping tool stays on the menu for corporate defendants facing waves of mass-tort litigation, and the next big talc, opioid, or asbestos defendant looking to manage a docket of claims now knows the Two-Step is at least available in the Fourth Circuit.Justices Won't Hear Challenge To ‘Texas Two-Step' Ch. 11 | Law360A group of IKEA customers filed a proposed class action against the Swedish retailer Monday in U.S. federal court, arguing that they overpaid for furniture during the period when President Trump's import tariffs were in effect — tariffs that the Supreme Court has since struck down — and that they are entitled to a share of the refunds the company will now collect from the federal government. It is one of the first big consumer-side cases to follow the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, and the legal theory is novel: importers paid the tariffs, then passed those costs through to consumers in the form of higher sticker prices, and now that the government is sending refunds back to importers, the customers who effectively bore the cost are asking for a piece of that money.Some major shippers like FedEx and UPS have already publicly committed to passing tariff refunds back to their customers; IKEA, the suit alleges, has not. Whether the claim survives depends largely on whether the court is willing to treat the relationship between retailer and customer as something like a constructive trust or unjust enrichment, rather than an arm's-length sale at a final price. If even one of these cases succeeds, expect copycat suits against every other large importer that quietly built tariff costs into retail prices over the last several years.IKEA customers sue for share of Trump tariff refunds | 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

In this episode, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (Ret.), honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center, joins to discuss The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals, a new keepsake volume from the National Constitution Center. Justice Breyer, who wrote the book's foreword, reflects on the enduring constitutional ideals explored in the volume and their continued relevance today. He is joined in conversation with the Honorable Cheryl Ann Krause, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and member of the National Constitution Center board of trustees. Resources  The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals Justice Stephen G. Breyer, “It's up to us whether the American experiment succeeds,” (USA Today, May 11, 2026) Justice Neil Gorsuch, “How Imperfect People Form a More Perfect Union,” (Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech.After federal courts dismissed the case as “unripe” and directed it to state court, the Third Circuit affirmed. On April 29, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that First Choice had demonstrated a present injury sufficient to establish Article III standing based on its First Amendment claims.Join us to discuss the ruling and its implications for donor privacy and constitutional protections.Featuring: Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of LawCasey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell | 04/27/26 | Docket #: 24-1068 24-1068 MONSANTO CO. V. DURNELL DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 828 GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT PREEMPTS A LABEL- BASED FAILURE-TO-WARN CLAIM WHERE EPA HAS NOT REQUIRED THE WARNING. CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA'') creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides. The Act preempts any state "requirement[] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under" FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. §136v(b). For decades, EPA has exercised its authority under FIFRA to find that Monsanto's Roundup product line and its active ingredient, glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. Consistent with that understanding, EPA has repeatedly approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. FIFRA prohibits Monsanto from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first obtains EPA's permission. Respondent is one of more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country that nonetheless seek to hold Monsanto liable for not warning users that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. The federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts are divided over whether FIFRA preempts such claims. The Third Circuit has held that it does. In the decision below, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that it does not. The question presented is: Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to- warn claim where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: ED112410

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking legal twists involving Donald Trump, but here we are in early April 2026, and the courts are buzzing with cases that feel like echoes of his influence. Just days ago, on March 25, Rutgers Law School reported a unanimous Supreme Court decision shielding internet service providers from liability for their users' piracy— a ruling that Trump supporters hailed as a win against overreaching tech regulations, reminiscent of his old battles with Big Tech in Silicon Valley. Then, on March 31, the high court struck down Colorado's ban on conversion therapy in a move that lit up social media, with Trump's name trending as allies praised it as protecting free speech and parental rights, straight out of his America First playbook.But the real firestorm hit with the Fourth Circuit's February 2026 bombshell in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, where the court dove deep into challenges against DEI policies, citing Trump's long push to dismantle what he called "woke" mandates in education. Gibson Dunn's DEI Task Force Update from March 2 detailed how a new bill is making waves, forcing courts in states like Texas to void contracts with DEI provisions and empowering taxpayers to sue public entities for violations—think injunctive relief and attorney's fees for anyone calling out government overreach. Briefing wrapped in that Third Circuit appeal on November 3, 2025, and oral arguments kicked off March 6, 2026, keeping Trump's anti-DEI legacy alive and kicking.Meanwhile, government contracts got messy too. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani's March update spotlighted Gemini Tech Services LLC v. United States, where the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled on February 5 that the Army violated an injunction in a bid protest over the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise procurement— a reminder that agencies can't dodge court orders, much like the accountability Trump demanded during his administration.Shifting to taxes, the IRS stirred the pot. Their Notice 2026-20 on March 18 extended relief for digital asset tracking, letting taxpayers use their own records instead of broker confirmations—a practical nod amid crypto chaos that Trump champions. And on March 9, the Tax Court upheld an IRS notice to Mammoth Cave Property, LLC, rejecting statute of limitations claims despite address glitches, as covered in the National Law Review's IRS roundup through March 25.Even FinCEN jumped in, launching a reporting rule on March 1 for all-cash residential real estate buys by LLCs or trusts—no mortgages allowed without disclosure—to curb money laundering, per DBL Law's alert. It's tightening the noose on anonymous deals, aligning with Trump's tough-on-crime stance.As these threads weave through the courts—from DEI takedowns to tax tech hurdles—Trump's shadow looms large, shaping debates on freedom, fairness, and federal power. Listeners, thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more, and 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

Federalism: May New Jersey prohibit telemedicine by out-of-state doctors not licensed in the State? - Argued: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 11:15:29 EDT

Civil Procedure: Are qui tam suits under the False Claims Act unconstitutional delegations of federal enforcement powers to private actors? - Argued: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 11:13:41 EDT

Abraham taught German and European history at Princeton University from 1977 to 1985. After transitioning to law, he clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1989 to 1990 and then worked as an associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York City. In 1991, he joined the faculty at the University of Miami School of Law, becoming a full Professor in 1996 and later Professor Emeritus. He has taught courses in Labor and Employment Law, Property Law, Immigration Law, and Jurisprudence and Political Theory. He has also lectured internationally at institutions such as the University of Tübingen, Deakin University, the Jena Center for 20th Century History, and the University of Ulster.

This Day in Legal History: Poll TaxOn March 19, 1962, Congress approved a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax in federal elections, a practice that had long been used to suppress voter participation. The poll tax required citizens to pay a fee before casting a ballot, which disproportionately affected low-income individuals, especially African Americans in the South. By removing this financial barrier, Congress took a clear step toward expanding access to the democratic process. The amendment was later ratified as the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, cementing the principle that voting should not depend on one's ability to pay. This change reflected the growing influence of the civil rights movement, which pushed lawmakers to confront systemic inequality in voting laws. It also signaled a broader shift toward recognizing voting as a fundamental right rather than a conditional privilege.The legal reasoning behind abolishing the poll tax focused on fairness and equal protection, emphasizing that economic status should not determine political participation. Courts and lawmakers increasingly viewed such barriers as incompatible with democratic ideals. This moment in legal history continues to shape debates about what constitutes an undue burden on voters.Today, discussions around the SAVE Act, which proposes strict voter identification requirements, have raised similar questions about access and eligibility. Supporters argue that identification rules protect election integrity, despite there being no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Critics warn that they may disproportionately affect certain groups, including those with limited access to documentation. The comparison to the poll tax debate lies in how both policies raise concerns about whether procedural requirements might exclude eligible voters. While the mechanisms differ—one being a direct financial cost and the other an administrative requirement—the underlying legal tension remains similar. Lawmakers and courts must again weigh the balance between safeguarding elections and ensuring that access to voting remains broad and equitable.The Third Circuit heard arguments in a high-stakes appeal involving a $1.6 billion False Claims Act (FCA) verdict against Johnson & Johnson and broader challenges to the law's constitutionality. The FCA is a federal law that allows the government to pursue individuals or companies that defraud federal programs. It also lets private whistleblowers file lawsuits on the government's behalf and share in any financial recovery.Judges appeared reluctant to dismantle the FCA's whistleblower, or qui tam, mechanism, though they engaged seriously with arguments questioning its validity. Much of the discussion focused on whether private individuals wield too much power by bringing fraud claims on behalf of the government. An attorney for business groups argued that this structure improperly grants executive authority to non-government actors, while judges pushed back by pointing to the long historical use of such actions.A central issue in the case was “materiality,” meaning whether the alleged misconduct actually influenced the government's decision to pay claims. J&J argued there was no proof that its actions affected payment decisions, but the judges suggested that such determinations are typically left to juries. They also questioned whether J&J had properly preserved certain legal arguments for appeal. The Department of Justice disputed J&J's interpretation of its position, emphasizing that the evidence could still support liability under the FCA.The panel also examined the role of evidence and jury instructions, particularly how jurors were told to evaluate whether improper marketing led to false claims. J&J criticized the “substantial factor” standard used at trial, arguing it was unclear and insufficient. In response, the whistleblowers' counsel maintained that J&J was seeking a stricter standard than the law requires. Judges appeared to wrestle with whether the instructions properly guided the jury without overcomplicating the burden of proof.Overall, the arguments revealed judicial skepticism toward sweeping constitutional attacks on the FCA, alongside concern about how the specific trial was conducted. The case highlights ongoing legal debates over the balance between encouraging whistleblowers and ensuring fair limits on liability.Key Details As 3rd Circ. Ponders FCA's Fate, $1.6B J&J Fine - Law360Music company BMG has sued AI firm Anthropic, alleging it used copyrighted song lyrics from artists like Bruno Mars, the Rolling Stones, and Ariana Grande to train its Claude chatbot without permission. The lawsuit claims this involved copying hundreds of protected works, possibly sourced from unauthorized platforms, and seeks significant damages under U.S. copyright law.The case is part of a broader wave of lawsuits against AI companies over training data practices, including a similar ongoing suit by other music publishers and a prior $1.5 billion settlement Anthropic reached with authors. While BMG argues this use is unlawful infringement, AI companies like Anthropic maintain that training models on such material qualifies as fair use because it transforms the content.BMG sues Anthropic for using Bruno Mars, Rolling Stones lyrics in AI training | ReutersA Second Circuit judge sharply questioned OpenAI's position in a copyright dispute with Raw Story, expressing frustration that the company's lawyer could not explain whether its AI system copied articles or removed copyright management information (CMI). The judge suggested that this lack of clarity weakened OpenAI's argument, especially at an early stage without full discovery.OpenAI argued the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show concrete harm or properly allege infringement, emphasizing that removing CMI alone does not violate a protected property right. The company also claimed the complaint relied too heavily on speculation rather than specific facts about how its systems operate. However, the judges appeared skeptical, noting that factual questions about copying and CMI removal might need further development.Raw Story countered that copying articles without CMI is itself a recognized legal injury and fits within longstanding copyright protections. The publishers also argued that OpenAI knowingly removed identifying information in a way that could enable infringement, which is prohibited under the DMCA. The panel ultimately took the case under advisement, leaving unresolved key questions about how copyright law applies to AI systems.2nd Circ. Judge Unimpressed By OpenAI's IP Suit Stance - Law360An immigration judge has ended the asylum claims of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his family after their detention during a large immigration operation in Minnesota. Liam and his father were taken into custody in January and held for about 10 days in a Texas facility before being released. Public attention grew after a widely shared image showed the child standing outside his home while federal agents were nearby.The ruling was issued by U.S. Immigration Judge John Burns, and the family's attorney has said they will appeal the decision, a process that could take a long time. Community members, including Liam's school district, expressed sadness and concern over the outcome while acknowledging that the legal process is ongoing.The case is tied to “Operation Metro Surge,” a large-scale enforcement effort that brought thousands of immigration agents to Minnesota. The operation led to widespread detentions and significant backlash, especially after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot during related protests or observations. The federal government later ended the operation, but local communities continue to deal with its emotional and economic effects.Advocates and officials have emphasized the broader human impact of the raid, particularly on children and families whose lives were disrupted. Liam's case has become a focal point in discussions about immigration enforcement and its consequences.Judge ends asylum claim of Minnesotan boy detained by ICE, report says | 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

To the neighbors in his exclusive New Jersey enclave, Dr. Jonathan Nyce was a "gentle giant" — a brilliant molecular biologist on the verge of a billion-dollar medical breakthrough. But behind the 21-room mansion and the 6,000 tulips in the drive, the "perfect" marriage he shared with his wife, Michelle, was a facade built on secrets, financial ruin, and a suffocating need for control.When Michelle's body was discovered in her Land Cruiser at the bottom of a frozen ravine on a cold January morning, it looked like a tragic accident. However, investigators soon found that the math didn't add up.Today's snack: Mackenzies Chocolates from Santa Cruz (thanks Molly!) Listen to part 2 on Patreon nowJoin our March Madness bracketsSources:"Collegeville Man Sentenced to 97 Months in Prison for Scheme to Sell Fraudulent Canine Cancer Drugs to Pet Owners." U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 16 Feb. 2024."Forensic Files season 11." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 May 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forensic_Files_season_11&oldid=1295790162.Glatt, John. Never Leave Me: An Obsessive Husband, an Unfaithful Wife, a Brutal Murder. St. Martin's Paperbacks, 2006.Grande, Todd. "Dr. Jonathan Nyce Case Analysis | What is Passion / Provocation Manslaughter?" YouTube, uploaded by Dr. Todd Grande."John Glatt." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 June 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Glatt&oldid=1318996874.Miller, Allie. "Former drug exec who killed wife in 2004 now in trouble for selling fake cancer cures for dogs." PhillyVoice, 5 Feb. 2020."Remembering Michelle Nyce." The FilAm, 6 Dec. 2011.State of New Jersey v. Jonathan Nyce. No. A-1516-05T4. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. 7 May 2009. Justia Law.USA v. Jonathan Nyce. No. 24-1319. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. 22 Feb. 2024. Justia Dockets.Vanapalli, Viswa. "Michelle Nyce Murder: Where is Jonathan Nyce Now?" The Cinemaholic, 8 Jan. 2022.

What employers should know about key developments this week: ·        New York City's Enforcement Blitz: The city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is cracking down on violations of the Protected Time Off Law, issuing warnings to 56,000 employers. Non-compliance risks hefty penalties for employers. ·        California Investigates Price Manipulation: California is probing "surveillance pricing," in which companies use prospective customers' personal data to adjust prices, potentially violating the Consumer Privacy Act. The state is focusing on the retail, grocery, and hotel industries. ·        Pennsylvania Expands Background Check Law: A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling broadens Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act to include restrictions and notice requirements, even for voluntarily disclosed criminal history. - Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw424 Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm that focuses its resources on health care, life sciences, and workforce management solutions, coupled with powerful litigation strategies. This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

A battle is brewing between an angry Federal Judge in Philadelphia, the Third Circuit Court of appeals and the Trump Administration, that wants to deny that slavery existed in this country and white wash immutable facts that our founding fathers owned slaves and erase that fact from a tribute to George Washington's slaves at a historic site in Philly dedicated to our nation's founding. Popok reports on Judge Rufe second order in 48 hours compelling the Trump Administration to restore the site they defaced WITH A CROWBAR, as Trump runs to the Third Circuit hoping that he will get one of his former criminal defense lawyers as a judge on the case! Factor: Head to https://FACTORMEALS.com/legalaf50off and use code legalaf50off to get 50% off Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us for a webinar examining the Third Circuit’s ongoing review of a decision holding that publishing ASTM standards—which are funded by licenses to use the standards—is a noninfringing fair use under US copyright law. This session will present arguments from both sides, analyzing the tension between a private entity’s right to protect its investments in developing copyrighted technical standards, and the public’s right to access the laws which incorporate those standards. With the Third Circuit poised to issue a decision in ASTM v. UpCodes soon, this webinar aims to provide informative insight on the regulatory and intellectual property policies that will soon be implicated. Featuring: Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture

This week, we're looking at the bleeding edge of gun-rights legal fights: 3D-printed gun file sharing. After a years-long hiatus, news just dropped in one of the major legal skirmishes. The Third Circuit threw out a challenge to New Jersey's file-sharing ban on Thursday. Just before that, California sued our guest for publishing gun files on the open internet. That guest is Florida gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere. He joins the show to explain California's claims against him as well as the federal lawsuit he filed against California in Florida. Larosiere accused California of filing suit for purely political reasons. He argued the state's claims are weak and its demand for nearly $8 million in damages is absurd. He claimed the state is effectively trying to impose its will on other states, even though neither he nor the other defendants ever went to California or intentionally shared information with anyone there. He believes the Constitution is clear that gun designs and files are protected speech. Even if you drill down into more technical computer code associated with 3D printing of guns, Larosiere argued those files are protected by the First Amendment as well. That's why he was hopeful the test the Third Circuit created for judging the nexus between gun files and the First Amendment would actually help his case, despite that court ultimately dismissing a claim against New Jersey's file-sharing ban.Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a long-awaited ruling out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which tossed a lawsuit brought by gun-rights activists against New Jersey's ban on sharing digital gun designs. We also cover a major settlement against a gun accessory maker that gun-control advocates blamed, at least in part, for the Tops grocery store shooting in Buffalo, New York. Story links: https://thereload.com/newsletter-digital-gun-designs-back-in-third-circuits-crosshairs/ https://thereload.com/third-circuit-tosses-challenge-to-new-jersey-3d-printed-gun-file-ban/ https://thereload.com/analysis-the-third-circuits-new-test-for-whether-3d-printed-gun-files-are-protected-speech-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/gun-accessory-maker-agrees-to-1-75-million-settlement-in-buffalo-shooting-lawsuit/ https://thereload.com/gun-sales-slow-in-january-despite-silencer-upswing/ https://youtu.be/-L9fwWdOJ50?si=qWq6ILWBi0mmJhdn https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/us/video/firearms-expert-analyzes-masked-subjects-gun-and-holster-in-nancy-guthrie-disappearance-lcl https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-trainers-nationwide-say-women-liberals-are-taking-interest-classes-rcna258195 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/9/virginia-gun-owners-dealers-unload-states-proposed-firearms-crackdown/

Second Amendment: How broadly may a State define "sensitive places" where firearm possession may be restricted? - Argued: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:30:34 EDT

American Suppressor Association head Knox Williams joins Cam to discuss the shocking defeat of a Virginia bill that would have imposed a $500 tax on the sale of all suppressors. Plus, Cam details today's oral arguments in the Third Circuit over New Jersey's expansive "gun-free zones."

American Suppressor Association head Knox Williams joins Cam to discuss the shocking defeat of a Virginia bill that would have imposed a $500 tax on the sale of all suppressors. Plus, Cam details today's oral arguments in the Third Circuit over New Jersey's expansive "gun-free zones."

Privacy: Is there a right to privacy in the photos that police take of the scene of a loved one's death? - Argued: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 13:46:28 EDT

Civil Rights: Does denying a professors request to teach remotely fail to provide a reasonable disability accommodation? - Argued: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 13:44:10 EDT

Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164

Yesterday foreign-born anti-American agitator Mahmoud Khalil received a well-deserved set-back from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a 2-1 vote reversed a lower district court ruling that ordered Khalil released from immigration detention while he sued to avoid deportation ordered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.Khalil had for months been leading often-violent anti-American protests at Columbia University calling for the eradication of western civilization. During this period he transitioned his immigration status from student visa to preliminary “green card,” following his marriage to an American woman soon after his 2022 arrival in the US. Secretary Rubio, noting that America has no compelling reason to allow to remain in our nation foreign nationals advocating against America's national interests, ordered Khaliil detained and deported.  That initial March 8, 2025 detention set off a series of detentions and releases and federal litigation that continues to this day.On June 20, 2025, federal district trial court Judge Michael E. Farbiarz ordered Khalil released from immigration detention, a decision appealed by the government. Yesterday's Third Circuit ruling reverses that release order—though this change in status is paused for 45 days to allow Khalil to appeal to either the Third Circuit en banc or directly to the Supreme Court, so he will remain free during that period. 

Episode 272- Jersey Spreads the Oppression  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment rights, New Jersey gun laws, national firearm licensing, anti-gun oppression, domestic violence restraining order, federal firearms licensing act, gun control measures, gun rights suppression, gun violence prevention, gun rights advocacy, gun rights litigation, gun rights education, gun rights resources, gun rights history, gun rights updates. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, New Jersey is spreading the oppression. New Jersey is like a cancer when it comes to Second Amendment rights, and it has to metastasize. This is really one of the primary reasons that Gun Lawyer, our show here, has reach that is further than just New Jersey, even though we focus a lot on New Jersey. But New Jersey is where we see the experimenting done at the cost of our rights, where we see the oppression in full force and effect. And we see their newest machinations coming from the Left wing, anti-Second Amendment, anti-American, think tanks getting their origins in New Jersey. Then spreading and then spreading, with an attempt to spread it to all of America. Evan Nappen 01:26 So, of course, we have New Jersey senators, strictly New Jersey senators here, that are now pushing a national gun licensing scheme, which is national Second Amendment rights oppression, to force the entire country into the agenda of disarmament via New Jersey style. And it is why you have to, we have to, keep the fight up here in New Jersey, which is the front line of the battle. We need to get our politics here changed, because the cancer has to stop. Evan Nappen 02:13 And here’s what they’re proposing right now. Granted, it’s not likely to pass in the current climate right now with Republicans in control, barely, but in control of both houses, and with President Trump at the helm. But it is something that tells you where the Democrats will go should they ever regain power again, and this is showing you just how far they will go to oppress our Second Amendment rights. I mean, it’s apparently not bad enough that the Democrats are so-called Democrat socialists, you know, communist light. But even just in terms of the Constitution that they are supposedly sworn to uphold, it is demonstrated as to be a false oath by them over and over again. Page – 1 – of 13 Evan Nappen 03:14 So, here is the current push, and by the way, this is from an article from Bearing Arms, and it’s by Tommy Knighton. It says, “NJ’s Senators Push National Gun Licensing Bill”. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/01/04/njs-senators-push-national-gun-licensing-bill- n1231085) So, who are the culprits here? Who are those oppressors out of New Jersey? Well, of course, it’s Senator (Corey) Booker and Senator (Andy) Kim. They’ve introduced this legislation, and they’re calling it the Federal Firearm Licensing Act (FFLA). Now, don’t confuse the title. Teddy Nappen 03:43 Doesn’t Cory Booker ever stop talking. Evan Nappen 03:46 Yeah. Don’t confuse this Federal Firearms Licensing Act with the way we traditionally think of an FFL as being a dealer. No, no, no. What they’re doing here, and maybe it’s part of their attempt to fool the public, I don’t know. But it would mandate that every American obtain a Federal Firearms License before purchasing or receiving any firearm. So, if you want to purchase or receive a firearm in America, you’re going to have to get an FFL. Now, this obviously isn’t a dealer FFL. It’s just a private person wanting to exercise Second Amendment rights FFL. This is apparently one of the most comprehensive federal gun control measures, what I prefer to call Second Amendment oppression measures, requiring and establishing a nationwide licensing system. Putting numerous new requirements on every American. Evan Nappen 04:59 Under this proposed legislation, you would need to complete a mandatory firearms training safety that includes both written and hands-on instruction before qualifying for a license. And this is a license just to obtain a firearm. This isn’t to carry a firearm. The Attorney General will then conduct background checks on every applicant, and the FBI would perform regular compliance checks to monitor license holders. So, you’re going to be constantly monitored by the FBI, as well as having to go through this. Each license will expire after five years, requiring gun owners to renew their permission to purchase firearms. And, of course, if the license expires and you don’t renew it, you’re losing your guns and your gun rights. And this is what the oppressionists, what New Jersey’s senators, are putting forward to try to create a national firearm licensing scheme. Of course, it has the end game of utter confiscation and to turn us into, you know, the U.K. basically. Evan Nappen 06:19 The bill will fundamentally alter how Americans can buy and sell firearms privately. Unlicensed individuals could no longer transfer to other unlicensed individuals. Instead, all transactions have to go through dealers, and selling or transferring a firearm without a Federal license issued within the previous 30 days would be illegal. Sellers are mandated to report transactions to law enforcement, etc. So, you can see this is just scratching the surface of this so-called Federal Firearms Licensing Act. It’s designed for the furtherance of their agenda. And this agenda we see come alive in New Jersey. How New Jersey citizens are turned into criminals. Law-abiding citizens turned into criminals by New Jersey Page – 2 – of 13 gun law. I deal with that every day, defending my clients who Jersey has made into law-abiding criminals. And this is something that they want to spread to the entire United States. So, beware. Evan Nappen 07:35 And keep in mind the history of gun rights oppression, beginning with New Jersey, and spreading to the entire U.S. is documented through a number of laws. For example, New Jersey first had the domestic violence misdemeanor and/or restraining order gun ban. New Jersey had it as a state law first, where if you had a domestic violence restraining order, or what New Jersey calls a disorderly person. We can view it as a misdemeanor offense. Concerning domestic violence, then you became a prohibited person to have a firearm. That was not a national law. That was state law. New Jersey was one of the originators of that law. Evan Nappen 08:22 And, of course, it was something that radically departed from what were traditionally prohibited persons. It had to be felons, convicted felons, and originally, it was violent felons, but at least you had to have a felony conviction. But now what you saw was misdemeanant, misdemeanant, a misdemeanant, suddenly having a gun disqualifier. And even less than being a misdemeanant, somebody with a civil restraining order became forfeit, disenfranchised of their Second Amendment rights. And New Jersey did it first to its own people. Then Senator, the corpse, Lautenberg, as you may recall, put it forward federally, and it became federal law by a New Jersey Senator. Creating new disqualifiers for domestic violence restraining order and/or domestic violence misdemeanor. Thereby, retroactively, by the way, because there’s no ex post facto when it comes to a civil disqualifier. Retroactively disqualifying hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that were lawful gun owners into being unlawful gun owners. And lowering the bar for a loss of Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 10:01 This has impacted thousands of people in their gun rights, criminal prosecutions, et cetera. And, of course, no piece of paper ever actually really protected somebody. I mean, that’s a joke. You know, these restraining orders are feel good more than anything. I mean, good luck. I mean, we’ve seen case after case where, yeah, the person had a restraining order, and they still became victimized by the person who was restrained. And even taking away guns from the person who has the restraining order. Yeah, oh, there’s no way that they might get another gun, right? So, that thousands of people get their guns seized. Teddy Nappen 10:49 Or, the classic. He threw pretzels at me! Evan Nappen 10:52 Right! Oh, God. Teddy Nappen 10:53 Or where you get accused of something that isn’t true, that they make stuff up and there’s clear falsification. And then. Page – 3 – of 13 Evan Nappen 11:00 Teddy, you’re so right. As soon as that TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, issues based on the flimsiest of allegations, with you having no say whatsoever. And, you know, it’s harder to get a sandwich at Wawa, than to get a TRO issued against somebody. You now have to go to court. Your guns are going to be seized pursuant to that TRO, and you’re going to have a fight, not only on the allegations, but also on trying to regain your rights. And it’s just a nightmare that can be triggered on the flimsiest of allegations. We see it all the time. And oh, well, that’s not politically correct. Well, it doesn’t matter, folks. I don’t do this show so I can maintain political correctness. Evan Nappen 11:46 I’m telling you what I see as a practicing attorney all the time in this area. I see the abuse, abuse of rights, okay? I see this system being abused against individuals. None of this means that I’m in favor of someone being domestically abused, being violently abused in any capacity. I don’t want to see anybody abused. But that doesn’t mean that we do not talk about the actual effect that we see happen over and over and over again when it comes to the Lautenberg law that started with New Jersey and became federal law by New Jersey senators spreading the cancer, spreading the oppression, to the entire United States. So, that’s why this bill that you may think right now is not a threat, but don’t underestimate how important it is to be aware of it and to know that this very well could become reality. Because other bills in the past that were thought impossible, too, become law have become federal law. So, New Jersey is the state to watch when it comes to the danger to our Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 13:08 Now I have a letter here from Ask Evan, and this is from Ron. Ron says, I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Well, thank you, Ron. I’m not sure if this is in your area of expertise, but I’m interested on how to handle fish and wildlife officers when hunting with a firearm. With open fields and extended powers granted them, what are we required to do and say to them when approached in the field while hunting,? Are there any recommendations or common issues you encounter how to prevent becoming a gun owner mess up of the week? I like how you call this. It’s a GOFU. You don’t want to be a GOFU, and I appreciate that you don’t want to be a GOFU. Teddy Nappen 13:45 Oh, check every, check every bush. Check every bush when you go out hunting, because you may find a fish and game officer. Evan Nappen 13:50 Hiding behind any bush, right? So, yeah, that reminds me of, I don’t know if I should tell that joke about. The law professor, the appellate judge, and the trial court judge all went hunting. So, they’re out hunting, and in front of the appellate court judge, the bush shook and moved, and out walks a deer. Now the appellate court judge looks at that and says, okay, there’s a three-part test to determine if that deer is a deer. You know, you gotta look at the antlers. You gotta look if there are any. Then you gotta look at the hoofs and the tail. And by the time he does a three-part test of the appellate judge’s determination, the deer is gone. It took off. Next thing you know, in front of the law professor, another little bush shakes and out walks a deer. And the law professor knows it’s a deer, but before he shoots, Page – 4 – of 13 he says, you know what’s the societal impact of me shooting this deer? I wonder how it might affect civil rights and current DEI requirements and all that. By the time he finishes all his social considerations, that deer is gone. Next thing you know, in front of the trial court judge, the bush shakes, and the trial court judge immediately fires into the bush and says, damn, I hope that’s a deer. Anyway, I know if you’re and maybe, maybe you have to be a lawyer to appreciate it, maybe you don’t. Evan Nappen 14:36 Anyway. Well, back to the hunting and fishing question here, Teddy. Sorry to torture people with that. And it’s a really good question. And what it says is, what do you do in this situation. Well, here’s the deal. Law enforcement is law enforcement. Fish and Game Officers are law enforcement officers, and they’re proud to say they are. So, the question is, do you have to talk to law enforcement? And the answer is, no, you don’t. You don’t have to talk to law enforcement. Now, what you do have to do, though, is you have to provide your pedigree information. I mean, if they asked to see your license, I would suggest show them your license and identifying yourself as you would with any officer, your pedigree information. But I would not talk anything about your activities in the field. I would not talk about anything about anything. Evan Nappen 15:40 I mean, if they walk up to you and you have your gun, then they want to make sure that things are safe. So, they may ask to secure your firearm in some manner, and it’s best to cooperate with that. But as far as what you say, you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. You have a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. You have no obligation to speak to them about any other questions they may have about having to do anything that requires you to say something without a lawyer, other than what I would just leave as identification and pedigree as to who you are, but that’s essentially how it is. And you know, if they say, hey, we want to search your vehicle. No, you do not consent to them searching your vehicle. If they’re going to search no matter what, then they’ll do whatever they’re going to do. But you are not going to consent to it, and that’s the difference. Evan Nappen 15:40 The problem is that with Fish and Game violations, you can end up having your gun rights in jeopardy. They will attempt to use your hunting violations as public health, safety, welfare, character assassination type tactics. Where they will say, oh, you didn’t hunt properly, or follow the hunting laws, etc, with firearms. And then they’ll use it to try to then take away your gun rights. So, there is a risk when hunting that hunting charges can jeopardize your gun rights by them using what I call the all- inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause, also known as “public health, safety, and welfare” of the 58-3 licensing requirements. They will take your hunting violations and try to push it into a claim that somehow you’re a danger. So, you have to be careful with having hunting violations, because, yes, it can directly come into conflict and cause problems for your Second Amendment rights on possession of firearms, generally speaking. So, always stand on your rights and be aware that your rights don’t just disappear because the Law Enforcement Officer you’re dealing with happens to be a Fish and Game Law Enforcement Officer. Page – 5 – of 13 Evan Nappen 15:55 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot, which is a range where Teddy and I both shoot in Lakewood. We love WeShoot. Well, they’ve been spotlighting some of their instructors, and they have really top notch instructors. They are highlighting about their expert instructor, retired Detective Sergeant Jim Weinberg, aka Rabbi Jim, folks. That’s right, Rabbi Jim is a legendary instructor at WeShoot, and Rabbi Jim is really top notch. He’s had a lifetime of service. Over 30 years in law enforcement experience in both the Union County’s Prosecutor’s Office and as Union County Police Officer. And he spent two decades with SWAT/UCERT operator. He’s trained thousands, and he’s a PTC Certified Instructor as well. That’s for Police Training Commission purposes. And he served as a Fire Instructor at the police academy. And so he is one of their great trainers at WeShoot. He can do the RPO qualifications, and he can do CCARE. And he has a great teaching style. Jim is just one of the great instructors that you can have instruct you at WeShoot. Evan Nappen 20:50 It’s amazing resource that we have right there in Central Jersey, easily accessible off the Parkway. They have a great pro shop, great staff and a great range. I mean it. We love WeShoot, and so will you. Go to weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Check out their website. You’ll find they have wonderful photography and, of course, you want to check out the WeShoot girls that have great guns and other things that they display proudly that you will love to see. And you can find those at the pro shop. They often run great sales and deals. So, make sure you check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 21:39 Also, I want to mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Boy oh, boy, things are heating up. We have some major litigation that we’re going to see some major results on in the Third Circuit, where the full panel has agreed on a number of our issues to do the review. We’re cautiously optimistic here about seeing some real important wins in terms of the case law. The Association is there at the forefront on this litigation. Very exciting. Regarding so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines, which we prefer to call standard capacity magazines and assault firearms. Man, the pejorative terms of the Left. They’re just so ridiculous. Evan Nappen 22:35 Anyway, the bottom line is, it’s not just words. It’s the effect that these wacko definitions that they put into law arbitrarily turn us into criminals, and that’s what has to end. I’m cautiously optimistic that the court is going to do that. The court is going to step up and finally address these key issues in a positive way for our Second Amendment rights. I mean, folks, I know it gets depressing out there with how we’re treated, but the truth is, we are making tremendous progress. We really are. Between President Trump’s administration and with the Supreme Court and with his appointment of judges throughout the federal court system, we are seeing great progress. I’m really excited for it, but we have to stay vigilant. As you know, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs will help you maintain your vigilance. Go to anjrpc.org, and make sure you join as a member. You’ll get those email updates, and you’ll be glad you did. Page – 6 – of 13 Evan Nappen 23:50 And let me also shamelessly promote my book New Jersey Gun Law, which is the Bible of New Jersey gun law, and you will enjoy it immensely. And you can say to yourself, how does a state like New Jersey even exist with this insane matrix of laws? But at least you’ll know because you have the book on how to safely navigate through them. So, get your copy of New Jersey Gun Law today. The 25th Anniversary Edition is available from EvanNappen.com Hey, that sounds like my name. Well, in fact, it is. Go to EvanNappen.com, and you’ll see the big orange book there. Get your copy today. Make sure you scan the front QR code and join my private subscriber base. I will send you out updates, and you’ll be able to access the archives. And I’m working on what will be the 2026 Comprehensive Update. We’re waiting to see if laws that have passed get signed into law, which I expect any day now they will be. And then I’m going to be putting out the update. So, you want to make sure you have the book and belong on the subscriber base so that you can stay current. Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 25:03 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. And because it’s the new year, we always gotta check in on the gun rights suppressors and what’s the latest of their propaganda. They decided to put out a report card like they’re, like they’re, a teacher scolding the states for failing to apply their gun rights oppression. (https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/) But New Jersey, who is the teacher’s pet, got an A. Evan Nappen 25:34 Of course, New Jersey got an A. What does the “A” stand for? Teddy Nappen 25:37 “A” stands for anti-gunners. Also, for New Jersey, the Bloomberg check cleared. So, obviously they’re going to push for it. So. Evan Nappen 25:46 I thought a stands for “a holes”. Teddy Nappen 25:49 That works, too. But yeah, they break it down in that. You can go to their website and check it out. They make it very convenient to click and compare/contrast states. By the way, New Hampshire got an F. So, good job. Evan Nappen 26:03 Oh, New Hampshire, good. F for freedom. Teddy Nappen 26:06 F for freedom. Yep. F for freedom. A for anti-gunners. That’s how we look at it. But I love how they tote it. Which is gun law strength rank, number two. Sorry, they lost. I guess California still wins the day. Teddy Nappen 26:19 Really? Wait, who was number one? Page – 7 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 26:24 From pulling up from that, pulling up, I believe it was California. Evan Nappen 26:28 That makes sense. Teddy Nappen 26:30 They went. Yep, California is number one. Yeah, congratulations to California. Good luck. Good luck. How are the fires? Anyways, I love how they tote the gun death rate ranking, one of the lowest gun death rankings. They always love to tote that. And what is gun deaths? Well, anyone who’s been shot by a firearm, regardless. They count and they misconstrue and put a stamp on it. And by the way, a lot of the other states don’t like to report. Evan Nappen 27:05 They push these false statistics. They’re just such liars. They’re unbelievable. They just, you know, they contort the statistics to make it fit their agenda. It’s that simple. Teddy Nappen 27:17 Yeah, it’s what they do. And they highlighted New Jersey’s investment of nearly $34 million in community violence intervention programs. What does that translate into? Oh, the domestic violence programs, all the anti-gun, you know, NGOs to fund our gun right suppression. Basically, when they say that, it’s them saying New Jersey is paying Democrats to take away your rights. Evan Nappen 27:45 Good way to translate it. Teddy Nappen 27:46 Yeah, just from following the money. I do love the comment section. Again, I’m treating this like a teacher going over. Well, you did a very good job. However, for a way to improve, expand your firearm responsibility laws, aka make a law to circumvent the PLCCA so that you can sue gun companies to create gun deserts. They want to require prohibited people to relinquish their firearms, even though prohibited people aren’t allowed to possess firearms. But that’s just, you know, they’re just, they’re just throwing something extra out there. And to raise the minimum age for purchase or carry a firearms to 21. I mean, at this point. Evan Nappen 28:33 Raise the age for guns, but they want to lower voting to 16. It’s amazing how certain civil rights should have high ages, and other civil rights have low ages. But we can’t just say the age of majority for everything, God forbid, right? 18. Teddy Nappen 28:50 I know. I know the you know the age should be 20. You know, I wonder what would happen to the Dems when you hear the age 21 to vote? Yeah. Page – 8 – of 13 Evan Nappen 28:59 Yeah. Right. Just apply anything. Or freedom of speech. That’s the other one. Yeah, before you can say or you can do anything. Before you can voice your opinion, you need to. Teddy Nappen 29:11 After getting approved from the Government to speak. Evan Nappen 29:13 Right. Prior approval and taking training courses with licensure. Teddy Nappen 29:20 Well, they already want to do that. Evan Nappen 29:21 So that every right is registered. Teddy Nappen 29:24 Well, you have to have the safety of language, because words are violence. Also silence is violence. It actually kind of reminds me of when I had to do the ethics. Evan Nappen 29:34 Wait, they said that silence is violence? Teddy Nappen 29:36 Oh yeah, that’s the game the Left play. Either. Either you cannot say those things because those are mean. But also, silence is violence. The only logical thing you can do is agree with us. That is their logic, and it’s quite disgusting how they play that game. Evan Nappen 29:54 I like that. Silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 29:56 Silence is violence but also, don’t use hurtful language. Figure that out. It’s a trap. That is the game they play. Evan Nappen 30:01 Why did you shoot that person? Well, because he didn’t say anything and silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 30:06 It honestly reminds me of when we had to do the ethics course for when you’re when you become a attorney. The certification they do. This woman comes up and then says to everyone, everyone on Zoom. By the way, they said to us in the very beginning, no one make comments to the speakers, Page – 9 – of 13 please. We know there’s disagreements, but this must be said. She gets up on the podium and says, you are not a comedian. Do not make jokes. That is offensive. Evan Nappen 30:06 Do not make jokes? Teddy Nappen 30:12 Do not make jokes. And my first thought was, my God, you are the problem with society. Like you can’t make jokes. I’m like, oh, my God. So yeah, but getting back to the. Evan Nappen 30:14 No jokes. Wasn’t that from Zulu? Remember when he was talking? Teddy Nappen 30:55 No, no, no. He says. Evan Nappen 30:56 What did he say in Zulu? Teddy Nappen 30:57 The sergeant, the Sergeant, Sergeant, yes. They say, no comedian. Evan Nappen 31:02 No comedian. Teddy Nappen 31:05 He’s going through like, he’s going through roles. Evan Nappen 31:08 Right. Because they’re getting ready for battle. Teddy Nappen 31:10 After the battle, he says Hicks? You’re alive. Say your name. Oh, I’m alive. Thank you, sir. No comedians. Yeah, I will give this card one thing important that I like. It basically lays the whole groundwork of them chastising the Trump administration for its very pro-gun activities they’ve done throughout the Government. Evan Nappen 31:42 Criticizing President Trump for expanding Second Amendment rights? Okay, so do they make a list or something? Teddy Nappen 31:48 Oh, they made a wonderful list. And I was like. Page – 10 – of 13 Evan Nappen 31:50 Let’s hear all the terrible things President Trump has done in expanding Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 31:55 Cutting $800 million of public safety grants, and $150 million to the violence intervention and prevention programs. Evan Nappen 32:03 Nice. The propaganda arm. Teddy Nappen 32:05 Yeah, all that. And then going after ending the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. You know, all the horrible laws that we’ve been getting in the SAFE offices? Those were created by the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Trump ended that office and then created. Evan Nappen 32:24 That was propaganda office of Biden. Teddy Nappen 32:28 Correct. And he ended that. Also the dealer regulation. This is them saying it. Dealer regulation, gun hardware. Trump has considered many cuts to the ATF and removing core ATF policies for penalizing gun dealers. You know. Evan Nappen 32:43 Those were outrageously bad. Teddy Nappen 32:46 One screw up and you lose your license. Evan Nappen 32:49 Yeah. So, that was great that he got rid of all that. Teddy Nappen 32:53 Gun Violence Research Policy cut hundreds of staff to the CDC and, you know, another propaganda department, pumping out false data and oversaw allocation of research grants, you know, to oh, Bloomberg’s college. Evan Nappen 33:07 Yeah. Because they want to make it a health issue so they can regulate it in that manner. And it’s not a health issue. And yet, they want to put it in that context, so then they can Page – 11 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 33:18 Then the big highlight, which I’m laughing that they actually know about this, the One Big, Beautiful Bill where it removes the tax requirement for gun silencers. They were trying to put a short barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns. I know those two. I don’t I don’t know if those two made it. Evan Nappen 33:35 Any other weapon. Suppressors, any other weapons. And by getting rid of the tax, the idea there is now we’re in litigation that the entire NFA needs to go. And, of course, with success with that lawsuit, where if there is no tax, then it loses its justification for existence. Then we can actually legalize machine guns by way of a simple reconciliation bill where we remove the tax through NFA even on machine guns. That’s how we’ll get the job done. Teddy Nappen 34:10 Take me back four years ago and tell me there would have been a bill put forward to effectively kneecap and shatter the NFA. That is the earth shattering power that this administration has done. Evan Nappen 34:26 And think about this. For the first time since 1934 when this was enacted, we’ve actually been able to take a piece out of it, and the piece has been the actual money that’s been collected. And by the way, there’s been a boom since the tax is gone, in people getting suppressors and getting these other things, even with the law still in effect. I have recently seen that the turnaround time on getting suppressors without having to pay the tax is very quick, as quick as one day. Even electronically, I’ve been hearing. So, it’s very fast turnaround, and it’s being done without having to pay the 200 bucks. Now, of course, if you live in the gun right suppression state of New Jersey, the state still bans silencers. But that’s currently being challenged in court as well. At the moment, you can’t have a suppressor because New Jersey is in favor of gun owners damaging their hearing and making sure that it is as unsafe as possible for any gun owner in terms of hearing protection. But we should see that litigation come to fruition shortly. Anything else on the list that President Trump has done? Teddy Nappen 35:43 Oh, they were going after, of course, the forced reset trigger. They’re trying, oh, yeah, that we’re like. No longer will the ATF come breaking down your door or trying to get, you know, going through and, you know, creating their own work by then saying, oh, it’s fine. And no, it’s not. And then going after innocent people who are making a purchase. It’s the level all these things. I just tell these people. This is as pro-gun as we could possibly get with this administration at the moment. And there’s still more to come, because we’re in the second year. We’re just starting the second year. Evan Nappen 36:21 I know. I know it’s just the beginning of our Christmas gift list of fun. So, it’s great. All right, well, so long as we keep making progress, which we are. But let me tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is, of course, the Gun Owners Fuck Up. And it’s important to know this so that you don’t end up having an expensive lesson learned, where you get to learn it on the cheap. You get to learn it free from the show. So, these are based on actual cases, actual clients, actual real GOFUs that I’ve seen. This week’s GOFU has to do with make sure you know the dates of your gun purchases, because New Jersey has Page – 12 – of 13 one gun a month, right? One handgun within a 30-day period. You can’t get more than that. So, I always look at one gun a month as kind of the gun of the month where you have to buy one every 30 days. But whether or not you want to take that approach or not, the problem is, don’t attempt purchase within the 30 days, even by accident, because it’ll have ramifications. It gets picked up on because of how the system is designed. If you even inadvertently end up in that more than one gun within 30 days, you can have serious problems. So, be very cautious. I’ve even had debates over the counting in terms of hours for the difference. Make sure you have a good buffer in there until we knock that law out as unconstitutional, which it really should be. I don’t want to see you have a GOFU in which the purchase within the 30 days triggers an escalation to seizure, revocation and possible criminal charges. The whole nine yards coming down on your head. Keep the count of days accurate and clear. Evan Nappen 37:07 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 2 37:30 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. Page – 13 – of 13 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E272_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";

On the afternoon of August 23, 2003, Erie, Pennsylvania pizza delivery driver Brian Wells walked into the local branch of the PNC Bank and handed the teller a note warning that he had a bomb and they had fifteen minutes to hand over $250,000 or it would detonate. Unable to access the vault, the teller gave Wells all the cash on hand and he left as the employees triggered the emergency protocol.Fifteen minutes later, Wells was spotted by police and placed under arrest. However, when they went to put handcuffs on the suspects, the officers discovered that Wells did indeed have an explosive device on him—it was strapped to his neck and rigged to explode. Officers cleared the area, but failed to alert the bomb squad in time and the device eventually exploded, killing Wells just three minutes before the bomb squad arrived.The bizarre death of Brian Wells seemed to bring his brief criminal career to an end; yet as investigators began digging into the background of the delivery driver-turned-bank robber, they discovered the plot to rob the PNC Bank was far more elaborate than anyone had imagined. ReferencesAssociated Press. 2003. "Witness also helped in 1977 slaying." Scranton Times, September 25: 5.—. 2003. "Woman charged in roomate's death." The Sentinel (Carlisle, PA), September 23: 2.Dao, James. 2003. "A childlike pizza deliveryman at the center of a puzzling crime." New York Times, September 5: A12.Fuoco, Linda Wilson. 2003. "Robber, co-worker death query." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 1.Fuoco, Michael. 2007. "Feds say collar bomb victim was part of plot." Pitsburgh Post-Gazette, July 12: 1.Lin, Judy. 2003. "Erie bank robber explodes in police custody." Citizens' Voice (Wilkes-Barre, PA), August 31: 5.—. 2003. "Bomb-case probers urge patience." Patriot-News (Harrisburg, PA), September 5: B5.—. 2003. "Man may have been forced to rob Erie bank." The Daily Item (Sunbury, PA), August 31: 3.Mandak, Joe. 2011. "Woman gets life plus 30 in collar-bomb death." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 1: 1.Nephin, Dan. 2003. "Woman acquitted of boyfriend's death 15 years ago charges with killing another." The Morning Call (Allentown, PA), September 23: 14.Schapiro, Rich. 2011. "Collar bomb." Wired, Janaury.Times-Tribune. 2005. "Woman pleads guilty in killing." Times-Tribune (Scranton, PA), January 9: 2.United States of America v. Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong. 2009. 1:07-cr-26-SJM (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, September 8).United States of America v. Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong. 2012. 11-1601 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, September 25).Wire News Service. 2003. "Neighbors say bank robber led quiet life." Patriot-News (Harrisburg, PA), September 4: B3. Cowritten by Alaina Urquhart, Ash Kelley & Dave White (Since 10/2022)Produced & Edited by Mikie Sirois (Since 2023)Research by Dave White (Since 10/2022), Alaina Urquhart & Ash KelleyListener Correspondence & Collaboration by Debra LallyListener Tale Video Edited by Aidan McElman (Since 6/2025) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech.First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court will consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Christopher Bates, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie

The Secretary of Defense has committed war crimes, or murder, or both. And this time, maybe Congress is willing to do something about it? Meanwhile, a rent-price-fixing company has sued the state of New York arguing that it isn't fixing price, it's doing the Freeze Peach. In DC, Chief Judge James Boasberg continues to look for who was responsible for the government disobeying a court order. And finally, sparklemagic imaginary US Attorney Alina Habba gets to join her buddies on the unemployment line thanks to a decision by the Third Circuit that we break down in detail in the subscriber bonus. Happy Cyber Monday, everyone!   Links:   Eleventh Circuit Bounces Trump's RICO Trollsuit [lawandchaospod.com] https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/11th-circuit-bounces-trumps-rico   Episode 168 w/Brian Finucane https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-168-license-to-kill-feat-brian-finucane/id1727769913?i=1000728033267   Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all [Washington Post] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/   Statement of the "Former JAGs Working Group" on Media Reports of Pentagon "No Quarter" Orders in Caribbean Boat Strikes [via Just Security] https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/former-jag-working-group-no-quarter-statement.pdf   Rent Going Up? One Company's Algorithm Could Be Why. https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent   US v. Giraud [Third Circuit, Habba Disqualification] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71195676/united-states-v-julien-giraud-jr/   RealPage v. James https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71964352/realpage-inc-v-james/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin | 12/02/25 | Docket #: 24-781 24-781 FIRST CHOICE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTERS, INC. V. PLATKIN DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5088105 CERT. GRANTED 6/16/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court. The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from . Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta , 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues. The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3124

Emil Bove, the president's former lawyer, was just confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The only place to go from there is the Supreme Court — not that the president needs any help there. This episode was produced by Denise Guerra and Hady Mawajdeh, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Avishay Artsy and Gabrielle Berbey, engineered by Patrick Boyd and Andrea Kristinsdottir, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. Emil Bove has been confirmed to serve as a federal appellate judge. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/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 Thursday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Clay: Sorry, NY The Senate’s landmark vote to defund PBS and NPR, a conservative goal that has been decades in the making. Clay and Buck frame this as a generational shift in media accountability, pending final approval from the House. The rise of Zohran Mamdani, a New York City mayoral candidate whose far-left platform includes abolishing private property and implementing socialist economic reforms. Clay and Buck debate whether Republicans should strategically allow Mamdani to win, arguing that his radicalism could serve as a wake-up call for voters and galvanize GOP turnout in the 2026 midterms. They suggest that Democrats embracing Mamdani could backfire nationally, especially in swing districts. The Audience Weighs In Calls and emails split between defending New York City and supporting Clay’s provocative idea of “sacrificing” NYC to expose Democratic extremism. The hosts also highlight Elizabeth Warren’s public distancing from Mamdani, interpreting it as a sign of internal Democratic discomfort with his ideology. Alan Dershowitz on Epstein Alan Dershowitz joins the show to discuss the Jeffrey Epstein case, recent developments in the DOJ, and media misinformation. Dershowitz defends Trump against claims of involvement in Epstein’s crimes, asserting there is no credible evidence linking Trump to any wrongdoing. He also debunks conspiracy theories about Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence, calling them baseless and antisemitic. Dershowitz advocates for full transparency in the Epstein files, including both accusations and exculpatory evidence, to ensure fairness in public judgment. TN Sen. Marsha Blackburn Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, offering deep insights into the latest conservative legislative victories and political developments. The hour opens with Blackburn discussing the Senate’s advancement of a major rescission package, which includes efforts to defund NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—an initiative dating back to the Reagan era. She highlights the elimination of wasteful federal spending, such as funding for vegan food in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda, projecting a potential $90 billion in savings over a decade. The conversation shifts to President Trump’s early-term accomplishments, with Blackburn praising his swift action on the economy, border security, and crime. She emphasizes his commitment to promises made, including securing the southern border, reducing inflation, and rebuilding the military. The hosts and Blackburn also discuss the “No Tax on Tips” bill and a proposed $6,000 annual Social Security tax deduction for seniors, framing these as key components of the GOP’s 2024 platform. Judicial appointments take center stage as Blackburn details the contentious confirmation of Emil Bove to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Despite Democratic opposition due to Bove’s past legal defense of Trump, Republicans pushed the nomination through committee. Blackburn criticizes Democrats for obstructing judicial and law enforcement appointments, urging the GOP to push confirmations forward without delay. The hour also explores Tennessee’s economic success, with Blackburn crediting the state’s constitutional ban on income tax and fiscally conservative governance for attracting businesses and residents. She contrasts this with the rise of far-left politics in cities like New York, referencing the candidacy of Zohran Mamdani and warning of the dangers of socialist policies. 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.