Podcasts about third circuit

News and Updates: Meta Settles for $18 Billion: Meta reached an $18 billion settlement with 48 states over child-safety claims, agreeing to a default two-hour daily time limit for under-18 users on Facebook and Instagram. Meta only pays the full amount if TikTok and YouTube also adopt one-hour daily limits and contribute roughly $5.3 billion each; the deal also adds "night mode" and "school mode" notification blocks for minors. LSU Hedges Kiffin's Bonus on Kalshi: A third-party firm, Game Point Capital, placed $3 million in prediction-market trades on LSU's football season to offset coach Lane Kiffin's playoff and championship bonus payments. Court Rules Kalshi's Sports Bets Are Gambling: A Ninth Circuit panel ruled Nevada can regulate Kalshi's sports-event contracts as gambling, rejecting the company's claim that they're federally protected "swaps." The ruling conflicts with a Third Circuit decision favoring prediction markets in New Jersey, setting up a likely Supreme Court showdown as 44 states argue these platforms are unregulated gambling. Dyson's $499 Camera Toothbrush: The Dyson CameraJet streams a live view inside your mouth to your phone and uses AI-powered "Gap Optical Targeting" to auto-floss gaps between teeth with precision water jets. Camera-Free Smart Glasses Gain Ground: Amid the "pervert glasses" backlash against camera-equipped models like Ray-Ban Meta, a growing wave of waveguide display glasses—including RayNeo, Halliday, and Even Realities—ship with no camera at all. Australia Considers Import Ban: Australian lawmakers plan to introduce a bill banning smart-glasses imports for 12 months over covert-recording concerns, as privacy advocates warn cheaper devices could "wash through society" before regulation catches up.

Ralph welcomes sportswriter Dave Zirin to talk about his new book, "The People's Historian: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn." Then Ralph speaks to labor activist Gene Bruskin about their upcoming Labor Day event at Busboys and Poets in DC, "Galvanizing Labor Day for a Workers' Compact."Dave Zirin is the sports editor for The Nation, a columnist for the Progressive, and the author of eight books on the politics of sports, including What's My Name, Fool?: Sports and Resistance in the United States and A People's History of Sports in the United States. His new book is The People's Historian: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn.There's a despondency that exists now, I believe, among people who are also very angry about the state of our politics. And the thing that Howard always insisted upon—he was an activist who happened to be a historian, not a historian who was an activist. And that doesn't denigrate his incredible skills as a historian, it just says where his priorities were in his time on this planet. And one of the things that Howard believed so strongly is that the movements themselves needed to have a strong sense of history. The movements needed to know that we live in a time of great ups and downs.Dave ZirinPeople did step up to create the Zinn Education Project. And every book event I'm doing, I'm showing up with copies of their materials and they usually have somebody on the ground doing the organizing at the event. And at the very least, we're helping it be a little bit sticky. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's not just a book event. It's not just celebrating Howard. But it's also something that allows us to be able to make it matter in a way that it otherwise would not—because it's not just about selling books, it really is about building a movement.Dave ZirinGene Bruskin is a veteran of the labor movement as a local union president, an organizer, and campaign coordinator for numerous local and national unions. He has done extensive international labor solidarity work, including with Iraqi workers and unions, and is a founder of US Labor Against the War.What we're breaking through here now (and partly this has been the definition of this resistance movement) it's workers versus billionaires. And I think the labor movement in general coming out of World War II has been captured by this mythology that “What's good for General Electric is good for the nation.” And the more the economy “prospers,” the more it's good for everybody. And it turns out that that's not really the case, because we don't have that kind of equality. And also what's in the national interest in terms of our foreign policy is not in the interest of the average working class person. A lot of that stuff is being challenged and reversed—not enough, but it's forcing some of the more moderate forces to the left, just as we're seeing in some of these Senate and House elections.Gene BruskinI think this is a really important moment for Labor Day because Labor Day, among other things, is generally the kickoff for whatever elections are happening in November. And it's going to be that on steroids this year. But I think the important thing is that, of course, we want to throw out a bunch of these Neanderthal Republicans in the House and Senate. But it's not just a matter of restoring a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. The question is: to what end? And what is on the agenda of a Democratic-majority Congress at this minute? What is the vision that we have for our future that we have to be fighting for? … We have to change this whole climate so that people have some kind of hope, some kind of vision for what we want and what we deserve. And the same old, same old, whether it's a Democratic Congress or not, is not acceptable anymore.Gene BruskinGalvanizing Labor Day for a Workers' Compact (Sep 7, 2026 2:00 pm ET): Busboys and Poets and Ralph Nader present Galvanizing Labor Day for a Workers' Compact, a discussion of how unions can maximize the impact of Labor Day to mobilize workers and voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and afterwards. (Event is in-person @ Busboys and Poets 14th & V + Livestreamed. Free and open to all, but registration is required.)News 9/4/26* Our top story this week is the neo-colonial oil extraction deal that has been struck between the Trump administration and the government of Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela. This government has been running the country under the barrel of a gun since Trump sent Delta Force to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro from his home in the Bolivarian Republic in January. According to the BBC, the new deal “grants a US-led company 100-year concessions over 17 oilfields in Venezuela, amounting to a staggering 65 billion barrels of crude,” or over one-fifth of the country's proven oil reserves. The White House has released a fact sheet, stating that much of the new extraction will be conducted by North American Blue Energy Partners (Nabep), and that the U.S. government will have “veto power over the appointment of any member of the board of directors, and a majority of Nabep's board of directors must be US citizens.” The announcement of this deal drew scorn from a wide variety of sources. These range from Trump's former special representative on Venezuela and Iran, Elliott Abrams who called the deal “terrible” and sees it as Rodríguez “simply complying with the demands she's getting from Washington,” to Rafael Ramírez, who served as the head of the state-run energy firm, PDVSA, and as the oil minister under former President Hugo Chávez, who is quoted saying the deal “hands over [the oil] and opens the doors to a new colonialism of the United States.”* In more outrageous foreign policy news, Reuters reports the Trump administration has designated the United Kingdom-based pro-Palestine activist group Palestine Action a ”terrorist organization,” part of the administration's “campaign to crack down on left-wing groups” using post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws. The United Nations has decried this move, with the UN's human rights office chief Volker Turk calling it a “disproportionate and unnecessary ⁠restriction on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association as well as the right ​to participate in public affairs,” adding that the “expansive use ​of the term ‘terrorism' has been documented to have a chilling effect on civic space.” The UK has sought to bring the legal hammer down on Palestine Action, though these efforts have been somewhat stymied by the courts. Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar of global expression at free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Free Expression (FIRE), ​said that the US “must reject that censorship - not import it.” Reuters notes that “Israel's foreign ministry welcomed the designation.”* This is not the only case wherein the Trump administration has gone to extreme lengths to punish pro-Palestine activism. California District Judge Noel Wise highlighted this in her recent decision, excoriating the State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for their attempts to deport noncitizens over protected speech. This ruling, stemming from a lawsuit filed by FIRE, “centred on how the second Trump administration revoked visas and detained international students studying in the US after they engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.” Judge Wise stated in her decision that “in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people..It is not the government's to take.” She added that the strength of our democracy is “diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave' or suffer the government's retaliation.” Mahmoud Khalil, the most prominent victim of the administration's policy of seeking to deport activists they want to silence, applauded the decision, saying “No one should fear speaking up for Palestine.” This from Al Jazeera.* Our final Palestine-related story for this week takes us to Hollywood, where prominent actor and activist Mark Ruffalo's recent comments in opposition to the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. merger, related to Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison's ties to his father's software company Oracle, have been cynically branded as “antisemitic tropes.” According to the LA Times, Ruffalo shared a clip of Safra Catz, Oracle's former CEO and a current Paramount board member speaking at an Israeli-American Council National Summit conference, where she said that “she couldn't discuss Oracle's work with Israel's military, but ‘we have some profoundly scary technology at Oracle and we wanted to make sure that it was available' to Israel,” after October 7th. Paramount's lawyers quickly sought to smear Ruffalo with the charge of antisemitism, including by deploying their allies in pro-Israel groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League. In response, over 150 Jewish filmmakers, academics, writers and even rabbis, signed an open letter which reads, in part, “Pointing out the crucial connections between what is happening in Gaza and what is happening in Hollywood is the exact opposite of antisemitism. It is, for us, the very essence of Jewish ethical duty.”* In other news, NBC reports the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Friday that “federal commodities-trading law does not preempt Nevada's gambling law as to the regulation of placing wagers on sports.” This piece notes that the 3-0 ruling marks the prediction markets industry's most significant legal setback yet and sets up a showdown at the Supreme Court, since the Third Circuit has already ruled that New Jersey cannot regulate Kalshi. The Trump administration has sought to keep regulation of betting markets under the jurisdiction of the federal body known as the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Notably, the commission, usually composed of five appointees, currently boasts only one single member: Michael S. Selig. Selig is extremely friendly to the prediction market industry and has sought to stave off state-level regulation by arguing for federal preemption.* Kalshi has been in the news for other reasons as well, namely for its attempts to self-regulate. For one, the Wall Street Journal reports that Kalshi issued its first ever lifetime ban this week, to none other than former Congressman and notorious grifter George Santos. This ban was precipitated by Santos' making over $17,000 by “placing bets on his attendance at President Trump's State of the Union address.” Kalshi adds that they issued a $71,356 fine to Santos. For his part, Santos tweeted “Hey @Kalshi thanks for the lifetime ban from your gambling platform…Let's see how much longer you guys are around for.” Newsweek reports that at the same time, Kalshi fined and suspended North Carolina Republican congressional candidate Laurie Buckhout for betting on her own race. Buckhout dismissed her bet as a “dumb mistake” and joked that her “career as a Kalshi trader was short-lived.” Buckhout is running against incumbent Congressman Don Davis in a newly-redrawn district engineered to favor Republicans, but polling shows a tight race. If Buckhout narrowly loses, many will point to this “dumb mistake” as a key reason why.* Another legal battle is unfolding in New York City, where landlords are challenging Mayor Zohran Mamdani's rent freeze for rent-stabilized tenants. PIX11 reports that the suit, originally filed in Staten Island but now moved to Manhattan, centers on complaints from landlords that the decision by the rent guidelines board (RGB) to keep rents flat on one and two-year lease renewals for NYC's million rent-stabilized apartments was “predetermined and illegal.” They argue that the board “cherry-picked data and was packed with supporters of Mayor…Mamdani's campaign promise to freeze rents,” while the Mamdani administration maintains that the board is an “independent body and considers both tenant and landlord concerns.” The mayoral administration will defend the decision in court, while the Legal Aid Society and Legal Services NYC have filed a request for the court to dismiss the suit entirely. An article in POLITICO from earlier this month reports that the plaintiffs in this suit hope to bring this case all the way to the US Supreme Court.* Our final stories this week take us back to the campaign trail. First up, Alaska Public Media is out with a report about a “chain of political maneuvers in the governor's race,” kicked off by former Anchorage mayor Tom Begich's “decision to step down to give fellow Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins a better shot at winning.” Kreiss-Tomkins finished first in the August primary, followed by Begich in second place and two Republicans in third and fourth respectively. Under Alaska election law, the top four finishers advance to the general election. This piece recounts how Begich's withdrawal sent shockwaves through the Republican candidate field. With Begich out, “Republican Treg Taylor moved into the fourth spot. But on Sunday, Taylor called for [fellow Republicans Bernadette] Wilson and [Dave] Bronson to consolidate their campaigns and pledged to endorse a combined Republican ticket. In a statement, Taylor urged Republicans to unite behind a single candidate, to counter Kreiss-Tompkins.” While fascinating for political junkies, many have observed that the maneuvers on display here and in Alaska's Senate race seem to undercut many of the arguments in favor of ranked-choice voting, with more effort being put into confusing voters or seeking to induce so-called “ballot exhaustion” rather than facilitating a more enlightened civil discourse.* Our final two stories cover the Massachusetts primaries held this Tuesday. The topline, as Semafor reports, is that incumbents swept their primaries in a stark reversal of the insurgent trend in Democratic primaries this cycle. The most notable of these was the crushing victory of 80-year-old incumbent Senator Ed Markey over his 47-year-old challenger, Congressman Seth Moulton. Markey won with approximately two-thirds of the vote. This piece notes that Moulton, younger but running to Markey's right, was never able to establish the “generational change” dynamic he wanted in this race, as “progressives and LGBTQ rights groups rallied behind…[Senator Markey].” On this latter point, Moulton was roundly criticized by Democratic voters, even in his own district, for “scapegoating” transgender people in the wake of the 2024 election. Reporter Dave Weigel adds a coda to this piece: “The subtext of Markey ‘26 was that he would be a reliable progressive vote for whatever the movement wanted for six more years, and then Ayanna Pressley could come in and replace him. Pressley campaigned [with] Markey, starred in ads; [and] at rallies he gushed about how she was the ‘north star' and if you wanted to know what the right side of an issue was, it was the side she was on.”* Finally, with all of that said, the pro-incumbent wave in Massachusetts did cut both ways. Progressive challengers to moderate Democrat incumbents fell short in the state's eighth congressional district – reelecting Congressman Stephen Lynch for a 14th term over progressive voting rights advocate Patrick Roath. Meanwhile, in the first district, WAMC reports Congressman Richie Neal, a longtime scourge of progressives, fended off a primary challenge from teacher Jeromie Whalen in his bid for a 20th term in the House – though Whalen, a political newcomer, won an impressive 46% of the vote. Neal will however face the formidable independent candidate Nadia Milleron in the general election. Milleron won nearly 40% of the vote against Neal in 2024; perhaps, if she wins over enough of Whalen's primary supporters, she can pull out a victory in November.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

The Third Circuit says machine guns are protected “arms”—then upholds the federal ban. Mark Walters explains United States v. Berger, the court's “common use” logic, government-created scarcity, and the threat to suppressor rights.

Would SCOTUS uphold the federal machine-gun ban? Mark Walters and Epoch Times reporter Sam Dorman examine the Third Circuit ruling, government-created scarcity, AR-15 protections and America's exploding demand for suppressors.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Nevada regulators have the legal authority to oversee and potentially ban prediction market platforms like Kalshi. The court determined that contracts based on sporting events function more like illegal gambling than federally protected financial swaps. This decision creates a significant judicial conflict, as the Third Circuit previously issued a contradictory ruling regarding similar operations in New Jersey. Because of this circuit split, legal experts and market analysts believe the dispute over whether state or federal law governs these platforms will likely be settled by the Supreme Court. This legal battle carries high stakes for the future of online betting and the regulatory boundaries of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for August 27, 2026. We open by tearing into Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner's comments about wanting a "paperweight" from the wreckage of Trump's planned White House ballroom, walking through why that rhetoric crosses the line from political disagreement into celebrating the destruction of federal property, and how the broader culture of "blow it up, burn it down" language is fueling real threats against the president. We get to our Top 3 things you need to know: President Trump's executive order renaming Lake Ontario "Lake America" amid the trade standoff with Canada, the Third Circuit's ruling that the assault case against Congresswoman LaMonica McIver can proceed, and the release of ICE agent Christian Castro from a Texas jail after Minnesota's extradition lawsuit was tossed as premature. Our American Mama Teri Netterville joining us to reflect to reflect on the life and legend of Dolly Parton including a moving story about her music showing up at a family funeral and a look at how she became one of the few truly unifying figures in American life, right down to turning down the Presidential Medal of Freedom three times so it wouldn't look political. We dig deep on two fronts: the Trump administration's new requirement that states conduct random manual audits of paper ballots to keep their Homeland Security election funding, which we frame as basic quality control rather than an attack on election integrity, and a close read of Texas Senate candidate James Tallarico's campaign theology, where we lay out chapter and verse why his claims about a non-binary God, abortion, and religious pluralism don't square with scripture. We also weigh in on New York Mayor Mamdani mourning a Rikers Island inmate's death without a word for the man he's accused of murdering, before landing on a Bright Spot: General Mills announcing its U.S. cereal lineup is now free of certified synthetic dyes, a shift we credit to RFK Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again push merging with MAGA consumer pressure. We close things out with a Say What on a Georgia teacher's classroom "gas station" for second graders, and a Moment of Whoa honoring Mandy Patinkin's new gig as honorary team captain for the U.S. fencing team heading into the 2028 LA Olympics. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski covers the first legal unregistered silencer sale in nearly 100 years. Then he discusses newly-unearthed videos of Abdul El-Sayed, the Michigan Democratic senate candidate, where he proposes replacing the Second Amendment. He also explains a new federal court ruling on whether the Second Amendment protects unauthorized gun exports. Plus, he looks at reports on a settlement between DOJ and the LA County Sheriff's Office as well as a new DOJ opinion on the Post Office gun ban. Links: https://thereload.com/gun-group-republican-candidate-transfer-unregistered-silencer-as-doj-misses-appeal-deadline/ https://thereload.com/analysis-who-and-what-is-covered-by-the-nfa-injunction-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/michigans-democratic-senate-candidate-floated-replacing-the-second-amendment/ https://thereload.com/federal-appeals-court-upholds-pennsylvania-mans-conviction-for-unauthorized-gun-shipment-to-haiti/ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-08-13/doj-la-sheriffs-department-settle-lawsuit-concealed-carry-firearm-permit-application-delays https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/08/13/doj-says-post-office-carry-ban-contradicts-federal-law-n1233510

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis sits down with Partners Joseph DeFazio and Joseph Froehlich to discuss the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in Diana, a unanimous ruling and long-awaited victory for debt buyers operating in New Jersey. At the center of the conversation is a high-volume litigation campaign waged by the Kim Law Firm, which targeted the chain of title for consumer debts under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJCFLA). Kim's core theory argued that any consumer debt under $50,000 — including personal loans, auto loans, and retail credit — that was ever touched, transferred, or assigned by an unlicensed entity is void and unenforceable as a matter of law, and that any attempt to collect on such a debt independently triggers statutory liability. The trio walks through how that theory played out across dozens of lower court decisions, appellate losses, a Third Circuit ruling, and ultimately, the New Jersey Supreme Court's definitive holding that no private right of action exists under the NJCFLA. Despite the favorable ruling in Diana for debt buyers, the threat of litigation has not disappeared. Kim has signaled an intent to pivot rather than retreat, leveraging the ruling's unresolved questions to pursue claims under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Tune in to this episode to hear about post-Diana implications and critical issues that remain for debt buyers following the decision. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Episode 53: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony AlbenceAmericans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence, argued before Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, and Marjorie O. Rendell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 10, 2026. Argued by Allen Dickerson (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity Foundation) and Emily Burton (on behalf of the state of Delaware). Case Summary, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: …Delaware administers perhaps the most staggeringly overbroad donor disclosure regime in the nation. It reaches any mention of a candidate for office—including an incumbent officeholder—in a public communication made sixty days before a general election. A mere $500.01 in aggregate spending triggers the reporting requirement. Once triggered, any speaker that falls into Delaware's regulatory maw must publish the name and address of every one of its donors giving more than $100, in aggregate, over a period of up to four years. Delaware makes no effort to connect the dots between an organization's donor and a reporting organization's often much later speech. There is no requirement that a donor earmark a contribution for a particular advertisement, for activity in Delaware, or even for ostensibly political purposes generally. There is no opportunity to opt out of funding regulated speech and thereby, through an act of unlikely prescience, proactively safeguard one's privacy. There is not even a requirement that a contribution be given with knowledge that an organization might engage in a paltry amount of political speech in Delaware at some point in the future. Delaware simply asserts that its voters need to know every donor to an organization that dips a toe into advocacy within its borders—in this case, thousands of individuals, across the nation and across multiple years… Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: Whether Appellants are likely to show that Delaware violates the First Amendment by requiring that any entity sponsoring any public communication that references a Delaware candidate near a Delaware election disclose all persons everywhere who donated more than $100 to that entity during a period up to four years; and Whether the equitable factors governing injunction requests favor First Amendment rights over First Amendment deprivations.  Resources:  Opening Brief for Appellants Brief for Appellees Reply Brief for Appellants District Court ruling Third Circuit docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. 

Episode 302-Not Getting Tired of Winning Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 302 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, New Jersey assault firearm law, Third Circuit Court, Supreme Court, stay granted, unconstitutional laws, Second Amendment, sensitive places, National Firearm Act, suppressors, Jordan Salinas, good guy with a gun, training, legal advice, gun rights. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen,. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, the wins keep coming. These are great times. You know, we have suffered from the oppressors on our gun rights for decades upon decades, and now we are seeing the collapse of all their machinations over the years. It is great and getting greater. And so, just within this short period of time, we’ve had the spectacular win in New Jersey in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the full en banc panel, all the judges, of course, finding that New Jersey’s 36-year-old assault firearm law and magazine law is unconstitutional. It’s a fantastic decision, as we’ve discussed, written by a Biden-appointee judge who happened to be the first woman of color appointed to the Appellate bench. That is fantastic and has multi-dimensional impact, of course, having that great decision. Evan Nappen 01:52 Now, with that having been said, yes, a stay has been granted in terms of the implementation of the finding of unconstitutionality. So, that stay is granted essentially because traditionally these kind of stays do get granted, especially when the Supreme Court itself of the United States has taken this issue and has granted certiorari over the assault weapon, what New Jersey calls assault firearm law under Viramontes and Grant. They’ll be deciding that. Essentially we’ll have a decision by next June on that issue affecting the nation. Now, New Jersey has got their stay because they’re requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to grant certiorari over New Jersey’s case, and the stay has been granted pending the final resolution, essentially, of these issues, or at least in good part, these issues by the United States Supreme Court. So, in the meantime, Teddy Nappen 03:12 I don’t know if you caught what the AG Davenport wrote in their press release, Dad. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:20 Well, they can continue to irreparably harm law-abiding, honest gun owners over these unconstitutional laws until that finally happens. But what exactly did Davenport say as they try to turn an utter defeat into some sort of short-term victory? Teddy Nappen 03:45 We are thrilled that the Third Circuit this morning stayed its ruling on our assault weapon / large capacity magazine case while our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court proceeds. That ensures this 36-year law will remain in place. (https://www.njoag.gov/statement-from-attorney-general-jennifer-davenport-on-third-circuits-grant-of-a-stay-in-assault-weapons-large-capacity-magazines-case/) 36 years of going after people, putting them in jail, taking away their rights, providing ruining their lives. Evan Nappen 04:07 Hey, wait, Teddy, are you reading from their news release? Teddy Nappen 04:11 Oh, you know, I read their news release and then added the little context that they forgot. Evan Nappen 04:16 Did they actually use the word “assault weapon”? Teddy Nappen 04:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 04:20 Or did they say “assault firearm”? What did they say? Teddy Nappen 04:21 Assault weapon. Evan Nappen 04:22 Davenport called it “assault weapon” law? Teddy Nappen 04:26 Yes, assault weapons. Evan Nappen 04:27 Okay, just so you know, this is the top law enforcement attorney for New Jersey who is calling their law something it is not. We do not have an “assault weapon” law. We have an “assault firearm” law. Now, granted, it’s a similar issue, and you know it’s the same idea of going after New Jersey’s version of semi-automatics. But you would think if you’re a lawyer, and you’re a lawyer for the State that has this case that you might want to refer to it as the actual name that your State utilizes, because that term “assault firearm” is the term embedded in New Jersey’s law. It is a defined term under N.J.S. 2C:39-1. Page – 3 – of 12 They are called “assault firearms” in New Jersey by law, by law. But you know, why would she bother actually using the correct legal term when discussing laws? That would be amazing, wouldn’t it? Teddy Nappen 05:46 Well, Dad, I mean, just the abuse alone, just to give you the one-to-one. You’ve had many times where people have been charged with having a “assault firearm”, and it’s not. But they love to abuse it and just use whatever term they want. I mean that goes right back to Josh Sugarmann, and his whole idea of making that term “assault firearm” to confuse the public so they could pass their laws. I mean. Evan Nappen 06:10 Yep, it’s exactly that. Well, Sugarmann wrote the manifesto “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”. That’s what laid the groundwork for this issue. It finally has one foot in the grave, is bedridden, on its deathbed, and the Supreme Court will hopefully administer the coup de gras in June 2027. I believe the odds heavily, heavily favor us, virtually to the point of I would be shocked if we lose. I just don’t see that happening, and the antis know it as well. Those oppressors get it that they’re going to lose on this issue. Teddy Nappen 06:54 It’s Viramontes and Grant. Evan Nappen 06:58 Yeah. Those are the two cases that Supreme Court has granted certiorari on. Just so you know, one is a local law out of Cook County, Illinois, that bans assault weapons, and has incorporated into the definition, magazines into their definition of assault weapon. So, the Supreme Court might actually address the magazine issue because it’s actually part of Viramontes’ law itself. e may see that. The Grant case deals with Connecticut’s assault weapon ban, state law, and when they challenged in Connecticut, they didn’t challenge the magazine portion. They only challenged the so-called assault weapon portion. New Jersey’s case, in the Cheeseman v. Platkin case, that court addressed both assault firearms, aka assault weapons, and magazines. And now, with New Jersey requesting certiorari, meaning requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, it also opens up the magazine issue. So, the Supreme Court that can do anything it wants might choose to address the magazine issue in the Viramontes and Grant decision. They might even, arguably, they could even take up New Jersey’s case and make it part of that. They might, and what most likely they’re going to just have it in a holding pattern. Evan Nappen 08:47 And we have the Duncan case that deals with magazines as well out of California, the Duncan v. Bonta case (25-198(. So, what it means is, if the Supreme Court doesn’t deal with magazines by next June, but just the guns, then they may very well take New Jersey’s case and Duncan with the split in the circuits there, and then deal with magazines. Like I said, they might do it all together. They might not. But New Jersey proceeding with this actually weirdly in the long run may present and give us a great opportunity because it presents magazines as a complete win by the court from our circuit. So, this may be one of those situations where you know the word to New Jersey is be careful what you wish for. This Page – 4 – of 12 is very interesting to follow. But I believe that all these laws are going to go to the dustbin of history. It’s just a matter of time. Evan Nappen 09:59 But as I have advised listeners, even when this decision came out, not to do anything because of the ability to get a stay. To wait and see. Well, that’s proven correct. I’s been proven out to be the wise thing to do, and have our listeners not end up being GOFUs by obtaining the firearms and magazines that are not yet technically lawful. So, for these continuing months, New Jersey is still free to enforce the magazine and assault firearm laws. Of course, if you have such a case or such a charge, your attorney, if they’re anywhere competent, will raise these very important issues and hopefully get your matter, your criminal matter, stayed pending the outcome and preserve the constitutional issues on your behalf in fighting it. So, be careful. Don’t end up with a GOFU where you’re facing these charges and your current counsel isn’t doing anything about it. I’ve had a number of those cases coming to me from other attorneys, where the client is like, my attorney never raised the constitutionality on these issues. Well, that is a huge mistake because you need to raise these issues, preserve these issues, because ultimately your odds of success are so great here, and it is essentially, arguably, malpractice to not, especially now, raise the constitutional issues if someone is facing in New Jersey or in the Circuit that has decided that these laws are unconstitutional. So, it’s very important that you be aware of that. Teddy Nappen 12:05 Would it be better if the Supreme Court does the other two cases and then take this one up as a mag separately, or is it better to do it all in one go? Evan Nappen 12:13 The best for everyone would be complete victory as soon as possible. However, if they’re not going to do that, if they’re just going to address guns now and then we have these cases to address mags, fine. We’ll fight the fight, and there you go. But the important thing, honestly, is that they’re taking the cases. Remember, for years they did not take these cases, and instead, luckily, wisely, maybe by planning it correctly-I don’t know-maybe intentionally, the groundwork got laid for the challenges to ultimately be successful. Because look, way back in May of 1990, I was an attorney. I remember this horrible New Jersey assault firearm law and magazine law passing. It was disgusting. Of course, it also became the Evan Nappen Full Employment Act. But the fact is, they passed this ridiculous law, and I remember thinking at the time, yeah, you know, in my heart, I knew this has got to be contrary to the Second Amendment. But we did not have any of the cases at that time. We didn’t have Heller finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We didn’t have McDonald incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. We didn’t have Bruen laying out the test of constitutionality and what test is to be used to see if guns laws, if gun laws are proper and constitutional. We didn’t have any of that. We didn’t have the giant body of historical research that is critical in these wins. We didn’t have any of it. Evan Nappen 14:08 And what the pro-second amendment gun rights side has done is nothing short of Herculean. All the forces together have built this fortress of the ability to defend and to fight and to take on the fight and to attack. Built this up so that we’re now in a position to have victory after victory. Yet, we see another Page – 5 – of 12 victory, another victory. Just determined in the Fifth Circuit, a nationwide injunction as applied to the members of the parties and their members, such as NRA and GOA and SAF, and FPC, etc. (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260805/federal-court-strikes-down-nfa-registration-requirements-for-suppressors-short-barreled-rifles-and-short-barreled-shotguns-in-nra-case) All joining, attacking the National Firearms Act under a legal argument that was made possible by President Trump in the Big Beautiful Bill. Remember, the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a reconciliation bill, that was dealing with money, taxation, funding, money. When it’s done as a reconciliation, then what you have is no need or ability to run a filibuster. Since simple majorities can pass the reconciliation bills under the Senate rules, the Democrats, the anti-Second Amendment rights oppressors, could not stop its passage because they would. You know they would demand the 60, have the filibuster cloture, and the laws would die on the vine. But this did not, because it only needed simple majority. In that bill there was a specific repeal of the taxes. The taxes that get paid on suppressors, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, on any other weapon, and silencers. The tax was eliminated to zero. And by doing that, it opened up the ability for the Big, Beautiful Lawsuit that was just a success in the Fifth Circuit, and how it worked was not based on Second Amendment arguments. It was based on jurisdictional arguments. Evan Nappen 16:55 You see, the National Firearms Act is premised upon the federal power of taxation. It is not founded upon the federal power of interstate commerce. Nor is it founded upon the military power. The federal government’s powers are limited. And back in the ’30s, when the National Firearms Act passed, they did not have the insane expansion of the commerce powers under the federal government. Therefore, the first national gun laws, which the NFA was, was jurisdiction by taxation. They imposed a $200 tax on suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc. Now, $200 in 1934 was just a little bit under $5,000 in terms of it being adjusted for inflation. So, imagine today passing a law that said any semi-automatic firearm that you want to possess, you must pay a $5,000 tax to the federal government in order to obtain it. Evan Nappen 18:26 You see how prohibitive that makes the possession, and then go through a registration scheme that is hidden in a pretext of taxation, which is blatantly excessive. And what has happened is by the elimination of the tax to zero, the court essentially said if there’s no tax, then there’s no law. Therefore, the NFA collapses in the enforcement proceedings regarding the paperwork, registration, printing. All the things that get done on the acquisition of NFA items. That law has been stayed for seven days, even though this is a permanent injunction. There’s been a seven-day stay to see if it progresses further, but that is a tremendous win on yet a different front of fighting for Second Amendment liberty. ‘ve had both of these great wins, and we have a lot to be proud of, and a lot to be optimistic about. Teddy Nappen 19:39 Regarding the big win with the NFA, I always want to see what is the what are the gun rights oppressionists? What are they pushing on this one? The Trace didn’t bring up something. However, Giffords, they’re flipping out, and I love this. (https://giffords.org/press-release/2026/08/giffords-reacts-to-federal-court-striking-down-background-checks-for-firearm-silencers-short-barreled-rifles-and-shotguns/) They go right to the. Just laugh, just reading it. This came from Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill. Remove the tax on these devices. The court has struck down the National Firearms Act, requiring background check and registration of firearm silencers, short barrel rifles, and shotguns. Page – 6 – of 12 Silencers and short barrel firearms, and other than handguns, are rarely used in crimes today because current laws have stopped them. Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding. Logical fallacy alert, everybody! Logical fallacy alert. Correlation does not equal causation. Saying that this will stop that these things have prevented crime does not make it so. What is your argument? Oh, they didn’t. They don’t have access. Even though prior to that, they weren’t used in crime. Generally speaking, as well. Number one is handguns on that front. But I love how they just try to toss that in every time. Just a red herring every single time, and they try to push it. Evan Nappen 20:56 Yeah, they’re just propagandists, and they’re losing left and right. It’s going to end up, my friends. You can mark my words. It’s going to end up that their entire world of gun law schemes, machinations, all these things that they have hoisted upon us as they die. I am greatly enjoying watching these gun laws die. As they die off and are impossible to find workarounds that, as well, get killed and die off. That they’re simply going to be left with only one mission, and their one mission of the oppressors, the one mission of the Second Amendment rights haters, will be to repeal the Second Amendment. And that’s where a fight’s going to end up. A fight over the oppressors trying to remove the Second Amendment. Of course, they’ll push this through their socialist, communist political movement. Remember, they want to make all kinds of institutional, governmental, radical changes, including getting rid of the Senate, including ending the nine-person Supreme Court and expanding it, getting rid of the presidency being elected where it’s an appointed, et cetera, and going at all different constitutional rights and turning America into a communist nation, and in so doing, they will also push. And Teddy, I think they even are saying, even now, to get rid of the Second Amendment. And you’ll see them joining hands. You’ll see the anti-Second Amendment rights folks joining hands with the Communists, with the DSA, the Democrat Socialist Wing, as the Democrat Party in its civil war implodes over the monster that the Democrats have created themselves. This is their Frankenstein that is now running loose on them. Teddy Nappen 23:27 Yeah, and quite frankly, just going back to them where they have pushed and pushed and pushed, where they said we don’t. They and there was a great video where this guy was basically trying to argue the socialist dilemma of the Second Amendment because it’s that catch 22 where they want to ban arms but they need arms for the revolution. For their great, you know, seize the means of production, but they cannot because they still push for red flag. They still push for universal background checks. Evan Nappen 23:58 Teddy, it’s like the meme with the guy sweating as to which button to push, you know. Ban guns so that you get, you know, so they could disarm the populace, or don’t ban so that their radical, violent Left can have access to firearms. Right? You know, they’re conflicted over that choice. Yeah. But regardless of what politics may lay in the future, right now the wins in court and legislatively. Okay. Remember, this is a combination. The reconciliation bill, etc. That’s all an important legislative changes that open the door to the ability to win on the front of the NFA tax attack and the big beautiful lawsuit. We are making tremendous gains and wins. And it is absolutely a reason to be optimistic. Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 25:03 I’m looking forward to seeing the decision in Koons and Siegel cases. Those that’s the case that addresses New Jersey’s sensitive places. We’re waiting for that same full en banc panel of the Third Circuit. Now, this is the same court that just killed New Jersey’s assault firearm and magazine law. That same court will be rendering an opinion over the constitutional validity of New Jersey’s sensitive places in the very near future. We’re going to see it. We’re just a matter, any day they can come out with that decision. Keep in mind, it’s going to be very important in countering and destroying the Carry Killer bill that Murphy and company got enacted. They did it. How? They did it because of their hissy fit to the Bruen decision, mandating carry permits get issued. So, they tried to make it so that this insane matrix of sensitive places makes it so incredibly difficult to actually exercise that right. is same court that gave us this fantastic pro-Second Amendment decision will be coming out with the sensitive places decision shortly. I’m cautiously optimistic about that. Keep in mind that the vote of the judges on the assault firearm magazine case. That was a panel of 15 judges, and the vote was 10 on our side, and five against us. So, it was 15 judges. One of the judges that opted to stay in was a judge that had been on a temporary assignment in, and that judge was a known opponent to Second Amendment rights. So, of course he wanted to stay in, and of the votes of the 10 to five ruling, one of the five judges was the anti-Second Amendment judge, but that judge is not part of the decision that will come out of Koons and Siegel. Therefore, it’s a 14-judge panel. And if we see the same voting as occurred on assault firearms and magazines, we should see a 10 to 4 ruling. Keeping our fingers crossed here in favor of knocking out New Jersey’s sensitive places, which would be really fantastic. And so, hang in there, folks. We’ve suffered a long time, but our suffering is slowly but surely being relieved. Evan Nappen 28:18 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot has some pretty cool offers and things happening. They’re offering the Bull Armory Ultralight Pro, and Bull is proudly recognized as North Jersey Friends of NRA Gun of the year for 2026. It’s lightweight. It’s exceptionally accurate, and it’s built for everyday carry. The pistol earned its title through outstanding performance, craftsmanship, and innovation. You can check out that Bull Armory Ultralight Pro at WeShoot. WeShoot is also offering Hornaday Critical Defense ammunition. Now, you know, Critical Defense and that Hornaday line of Critical Duty, as well, is one of the most trusted names in personal protection. That round is designed and engineered for reliable expansion, and dependable feeding, and confidence when it essentially matters most. And let me tell you, the Hornaday Critical Defense and Critical Duty, those are polymer-tipped rounds that perform arguably even better than hollow nose. But are not hollow nose bullets under New Jersey law because the nose is actually not hollow. It’s got an insert filling the hole. So, because of that, it is an ideal round for carry in New Jersey. You can’t carry, at the moment, actual hollow nose, but you can carry Critical Defense or Critical Duty. And frankly, it’s got advantages over hollow nose. Evan Nappen 30:12 Not just because it performs as well or better, but also because of the nose having the polymer plug. It actually feeds even more reliably than hollow nose. So, it’s actually far superior, at least in these terms, to your normal hollow nose ammunition. So, check out Critical Defense at WeShoot. Also, WeShoot has the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle. Now that Mini 14, that’s an American classic. It’s earned its reputation through decades of proven reliability, versatility, and timeless styling. And let me tell you Page – 8 – of 12 about the Ruger. The new Rugers are incredibly accurate. You know the old Ruger with the pencil barrels-they were called pencil barrels. They weren’t known for their accuracy. hey functioned well and sure looked cool when the A-team had them rolling, right? But accuracy-wise, not so much. However, the new Rugers are extremely accurate. The barrel is thickened toward the base, and it is a redesign that gives incredible tack driving accuracy to the new Ruger Mini-14s. The Ranch rifle will be able to deliver for you, and of course, it’s set so you can not only have the scope rings, the classic Ruger scope rings, but even a Picatinny rail that fits in where you could put the rings, and then you could Picatinny it up to whatever optics you like as well. So, Ruger has come a long way, and the new Mini-14 is something you need to check out. I really do love the new Mini. I have one myself and greatly appreciated having had the old ones as well. So, you can get yours at WeShoot. Weshootusa.com is their website. Evan Nappen 32:26 I want to also remind you that if you want to get a New Jersey carry permit, you really should get it. Join our ranks of 100,000 or more here of permitted carry holders. The more folks we get with carries, the closer we get to constitutional carry. So, make sure you’re part of that. You can get your CCARE certification from WeShoot. They have all the great training there. It’s a fantastic facility. It’s a wonderful resource, conveniently off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. So, make sure you stop by and check out their website as well. weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 33:10 Let me also shamelessly plug my book, New Jersey Gun Law. The Bible of Jersey Gun Law. You need to have it. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer, so that you don’t become a GOFU. Make sure you have that book. Go to EvanNappen.com. You’ll see the big orange cover right there. Click it, and you’ll have it in a matter of days. Go to EvanNappen.com to get your New Jersey Gun Law book. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 33:48 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I imagine you’ve caught all about the In and Out shooting. What happened there? Evan Nappen 33:59 Well, maybe our listeners aren’t aware of that. would be surprised, but they may not know there was a major shooting that took place at, at and outside of and around this In / Out Burger in Idaho. Hey, I don’t know if any of you’ve ever eaten at In / Out Burger. It’s a West Coast thing. I really do love In / Out Burger. Just a side note, by the way, guys. But anyway, I digress. So, I could have well seen myself ending up at In / Out Burger in Idaho if I was out there. And Teddy Nappen 34:33 Isn’t there mustard on the burger that they do? Evan Nappen 34:35 No, no, that’s Whataburger. Another great burger chain. Oh, listen, we’re gonna have to call this the Burger Show shortly, instead of the burger lawyer, hamburger lawyer. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 34:44 What’s the best at In / Out? Evan Nappen 34:47 I like to get you know they have the secret menu and all that. I get the protein wrap where they take their In / Out Burger and they wrap it in lettuce. You know, I’ve lost over 200 pounds, and I avoid the carbs. I love the lettuce wrap, the protein. They call them the protein wrap. They wrap their In / Out burgers strictly in lettuce, so you have no carbs, and they’re delicious in-out burgers. So, that’s my favorite. But their stuff is really delicious. However, on this particular occasion, it was not so good. We had a bad guy going there with a gun and decided he was going to shoot up the place. And lo and behold, what happened, Teddy? What happened? A fellow by the name of Jordan Salinas. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 35:35 Yes, good guy with a gun. Jordan Salinas, where he was with his girlfriend, and they had planned a quiet Saturday. You know, going horseback riding, so and you know, going out for a nice lunch in Twin Falls. And as the gunman Chad Williams has been identified, who was shooting up the In-N-Out, Jordan drew his holstered FN five seven semi-auto pistol with a suppressor to fire back and save the people inside. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/armed-citizen-used-a-suppressed-pistol-to-save-lives-at-twin-falls-in-n-out/) Evan Nappen 36:10 Okay, so first of all, that gun standard has a 20 round magazine, and it’s readily available to have a 30-round mag, so that gun with its standard capacity magazine, you would you would up until the recent case, and even though there’s a stay at the moment, you still can’t have that handgun with the standard capacity magazine. But I’m confident we will be able to. So, you couldn’t have that gun in New Jersey unless you had a lame 10-round magazine in it. Which what’s the point when you have an FN five seven that can hold 20 or even 30 of the five seven ammo? And then his gun has a silencer or suppressor on it, which is just great. Again, that is prohibited in New Jersey because New Jersey doesn’t allow silencers at all. So, here we have this crime being committed by this Chad fellow, and lo and behold, the hero, the good guy with the gun, breaks out his five seven with the suppressor and starts laying down fire on the bad guy. It was fantastic, and he was credited, wasn’t he, by law enforcement with saving lives, Who’s Crowder? Teddy Nappen 39:28 Stephen Crowder, Gladworth Crowder. He did a full breakdown on it, where it’s about training, where you just do enough to where you can handle yourself in a situation. And what Evan Nappen 39:36 did he? What did he say hasn’t been? Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 39:39 So the one thing that caught is the fact that he’s has a suppressor attached to it, and it was identified in one of his other videos as he uses an FN five seven USG fitted Tactical Solutions Axiom suppressor, firing Vanguard 55 grain subsonic five sevens. Evan Nappen 40:00 Nice. Teddy Nappen 40:00 That was I so that may not now they may not be his exact rig at that moment, but that was what was reported to what he was practicing with. But that being said, this is one to one of what he was using in the and so Evan Nappen 40:12 you know when you step back, Teddy, and look at this. Normally, when there is some bad guy shooting up soft target area, the antis just cheer because they get to do a blood dance to try to attack and oppress gun rights, because it’s the old saying of they never let a tragedy go to waste. However, here the entire thing was turned on its ear because we had an armed civilian who saved lives and did it with a 20 to 30 round capacity handgun with a suppressor, okay, and so this completely turned around this incident to be one of the greatest current examples of why citizens need to be armed and ready and trained, and so the antis can’t even respond because in their normal blood dance that they like to do, it just always goes back to well. Look, we had a good guy with a gun make the difference. That’s the key, and it’s so important, so great that Jordan Salinas was there to save the folks that he did. He rendered aid even to the injured after. He’s just a great person as well. It was amazing to see this, that, and it so turned it around that I’m going to put on my conspiracy hat the way we sometimes see happen with the shootings that they use to go against our gun rights, I’m going to put my conspiracy hat on and say I think this, given how the outcome was, that this was a false flag operation run by us, because it’s had such tremendous-I’m just kidding about that. Of course, it’s not run by us. We, but you know, yeah, Candace Owens might run with it. Oh yeah, it was-it was the pro-gun side that engineered the entire thing. To no, but the thing is, the impact has been tremendous, and it’s now iconic of Jordan Salinas in his position. It’s like as iconic as Sophie Cunningham pointing is Jordan Salinas in his perfect firing position with his suppressed five seven. Seeing Teddy Nappen 42:57 the I’ve been seeing the citizen cowboy joke that’s been circling. Oh yeah, Evan Nappen 43:02 as compared to Citizen Vigilante, it’s now Citizen Cowboy. Teddy Nappen 43:06 Yeah, Citizen Cowboy because he has. But he’s Citizen Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 43:09 Defender. He’s not a vigilante. He’s a defender. He’s a defender at the moment. Being a man, imagine that being a man. Actually, is that your greatest example of so-called toxic masculinity, right there, called saving lives. I guess so. The Teddy Nappen 43:25 the other thing is, and I want to take this step further. I see where we win in the argument of common use. I want this to be a common thing where people are using suppressors in self-defense shootings. I want people to start carrying and doing that. I think there’s a lot of advantages to Evan Nappen 43:44 having them in self-defense shootings because Teddy Nappen 43:46 if you go back to the old where it was like we’re using 45 for the stopping power or nine, this guy had a five-seven with the suppressor. We were putting out more rounds, and you’re protecting your hearing on that. So it’s definitely that new frame. It’s a very interesting Evan Nappen 44:01 choice, and I’m sure on the technical side, people will can always debate what’s the best. But the bottom line is, well, someone Teddy Nappen 44:09 was going to say like, but look, what’s really the best Evan Nappen 44:11 is that a good guy with a gun helped save the day, and that’s what really matters. Evan Nappen 44:17 And Teddy, I need to tell you about this week’s GOFU because I’ve been seeing a lot of it. GOFUs, as you know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. It’s where gun owners make expensive mistakes, costly mistakes, and you get to learn for free. I got to tell you, this week’s GOFU something I see. You know, when it comes to restoring rights, when it comes to getting an expungement, I have to say, do not do it yourself. Seek professionals that know how to do it. I’ve been getting more poorly, improperly done pro se, where the individual themselves tried to expunge their record. There’s too much to that law. Too many complications. Too many nuances. Too many things you have to know to do it right. And when you do it wrong, it’s 10 times more difficult to fix it, and it can end up costing you. If you expunge poorly, and then you apply to get your firearm because you think your rights are restored and they’re not, you end up with a denial. Now you end up with falsification of the application because you wrote no when you should have wrote yes. You wrote no because you thought you were expunged, but you didn’t do it properly. We see this all the time. There is an entire procedure. There are things you need to know. You need to go to a professional. Whether, you know, and I just don’t mean me. Like some attorney. We do them at my firm. We do plenty of expungements. We help people with that. It’s great. But you need to make sure whoever is doing your expungement really understands it, and especially does it Page – 12 – of 12 with gun ownership in mind. Because when it’s done poorly, it can absolutely come back and bite you in the behind. Evan Nappen 45:54 Hey, 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 46:01 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E302_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";

Connect With ChazProfessor Tonya M. Evans graduated from Howard University School of Law, clerked in the Third Circuit, practiced at major law firms in Philadelphia, and is now a full tenured professor at Penn State with a joint appointment in data sciences. She is also a former professional tennis player who played at Northwestern on scholarship, and she is one of the most credible voices in the country on the intersection of law, finance, and emerging technology.Her message to business owners is simple and direct: the big banks are trying to scare you out of a space they are quietly moving into themselves. JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon still calls Bitcoin garbage. JP Morgan is an authorized participant in the Bitcoin ETF. BlackRock, the most conservative investment firm in the world, was first in line to issue a Bitcoin ETF. The little guy is being scared away while institutional money gets positioned.In this conversation with Chaz Wolfe, Prof Tonya breaks down what blockchain actually is in plain language, the three biggest crypto myths holding business owners back, why it is not early but not late, and how to start thinking about Web3 as a business owner even if you never buy a single coin.Key Takeaways:Crypto comes from cryptography. Blockchain is a digital ledger. That is it. When someone starts throwing jargon at you, they are either confused themselves or they want you confused. It is a public record of transactions that no single entity controls.Bitcoin came on the scene January 3rd, 2009. Fewer than 8 percent of people globally hold it. If that is a fad, it is the longest fad and scam in the history of fads and scams.The banks are not scared of crypto because it is dangerous. They are scared because it threatens their dominance. Jamie Dimon calls it garbage while JP Morgan participates in the Bitcoin ETF. Follow the money, not the press release.The biggest mistake most people made in the 2021 crypto run was buying everything because the tide was rising. A rising tide lifts all boats, including the garbage ones. Holding Bitcoin through the crash and not chasing every alt coin is the lesson most people paid dearly to learn.Traditional wealth-building paths are not enough anymore. Max out your 403(b), buy a house, get rental property, ride it out. Prof Tonya followed that playbook as a high-income earner and found herself making all the money and all the mistakes simultaneously.First mover advantage is fleeting. If you are a business owner who has not thought about how blockchain and Web3 will affect your industry, start now. Not because you have to invest, but because the technology is moving with or without your awareness.Decentralized AI is the next frontier. The same centralized model problem that exists in banking is being replicated in artificial intelligence. The business owners who understand decentralization early will have options the others will not.The blockchain is public facing. The Department of Justice uses blockchain forensics regularly to recover millions in assets. It is not anonymous. It is the opposite of a dark market.Stable coins are going to matter more than most people think. For businesses operating globally or in any space without physical borders, a verifiable stable form of digital currency is not optional. It is coming.The mastermind principle applies here too. You do not have to be the expert on everything. You have to get around people who are, stay curious, and keep your saw sharpened.If you are a contractor business owner doing $1M+ and you feel stuck in the day-to-day, we built GTK for you.Through peer mastermind and 1:1 coaching, we help you:increase profitinstall real systemsbuild a team that runs the businessget your time backVisit www.gatheringthekings.com for information on how to apply.Connect with Chaz Wolfe (Host):WebsiteFacebookInstagramLinkedInYouTubeProfit Starts with Better Books!Clean books. Clear reports. Monthly bookkeeping built by business owners, for business owners.Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showLike what you heard? Share this episode with a friend and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify! Join the conversation by visiting GatheringTheKings.com and apply to connect with other high-performing entrepreneurs and their families.

The Third Circuit delays New Jersey's gun ban case as SCOTUS prepares to hear Grant v. Higgins. Mark Walters and Lee Williams break down the legal strategy, Idaho's armed citizen hero, ATF suppressor concerns, and what comes next for gun rights.

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.

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.

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 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

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

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

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.

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

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."

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

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. 

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.