Podcasts about third circuit

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

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

Immigration: May the government revoke a Green Card for constitutionally protected campus speech? - Argued: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:47:14 EDT

Civic education is full of nostalgia. Horace Mann, John Dewey, and the Cold War era often come up in conversations about the current state of affairs. Judge Marjorie Rendell knows this well because she grew up in the postwar era and understand how different today's civic education is from what she received as a young student. She saw it firsthand when she visited classrooms across Pennsylvania during her eight years as the state's First Lady and decided to do something about it when she left the role.Today, the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement conducts mock trials, read-alouds, and other activities designed to transform civic education from something dry and boring into something exciting for elementary and middle school students. The center also has an eye to the future and are exploring how graphic novels and AI can help their work moving forward. Rendell joins us to talk about the center's work and her current role as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We discuss what it's like to be a federal judge in the current political climate ,and the role that judges and lawyers can play in helping students learn about the Constitution.The Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement received the McCourtney Institute for Democracy's 2025 Brown Democracy Medal.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Second Amendment: May New Jersey ban AR-15s and magazines that hold more than ten rounds? - Argued: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 6:55:0 EDT

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution, a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. But today, those cornerstones are being blatantly disrespected by a presidential administration attempting to consolidate power at all costs..In this episode, host Simone Leeper is joined by Campaign Legal Center litigators Anna Baldwin and Brent Ferguson. They examine the most pressing examples of the erosion of the rule of law, from the politicization of the Department of Justice to the stifling of free speech. Along the way, they highlight how Congress and the courts have failed as effective checks — leaving civil society and citizens to defend constitutional principles — and explore the reforms that could restore accountability, protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy against threats. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why is free speech under attack in the U.S.?(03:50) — How is political opposition being falsely linked to political violence?(05:38) — Why is deploying federal troops in U.S. cities a threat to democracy?(09:50) — How are Congress and the courts failing to check presidential abuses of power?(15:09) — How has the DOJ been transformed into a political tool?(20:17) — Why is the Voting Rights Act no longer being enforced?(21:17) — What's at stake with the DOJ's demand for voter data?(27:27) — How is CLC challenging unlawful executive orders?(32:30) — What reforms are needed to restore checks and balances?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Anna Baldwin is a member of Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team working to protect the freedom to vote, litigating cases in state and federal courts, from filing through appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to joining CLC, Anna spent 14 years in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, Anna led briefing and appellate argument for the United States to overturn a North Carolina law that purposefully restricted voting and registration opportunities for Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Anna was also a member of the trial team that successfully challenged Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law. Anna has argued eighteen cases before the federal courts of appeal, including four en banc cases. Previously, Anna was an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, and clerked for Judge James Robertson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge M. Blane Michael on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Brent Ferguson leads Campaign Legal Center's strategic litigation team, focusing on anti-authoritarianism and litigating in all areas of election law. Brent has worked on protecting and improving our democracy for most of his career. At CLC, he has led litigation teams challenging state and federal laws and policies that seek to unlawfully purge voters, limit voter registration activity and otherwise prevent Americans from exercising their constitutionally protected rights. He has authored academic articles on election law and other constitutional issues in the Washington Law Review, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Emory Law Journal Online and elsewhere. Before coming to CLC, Brent was senior counsel at the National Redistricting Foundation, where he helped develop strategy for federal and state redistricting litigation. For four years, he served as counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on campaign finance reform and working on a broad range of other democracy issues. He was also an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he litigated appeals of public corruption convictions. He clerked for Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Links:Taking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power | Campaign Legal CenterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440 24-440 BERK V. CHOY DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482 CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court. Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint. See 18 Del. C. § 6853. An AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct. See id. § 6853(a)(l). The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no conflict" with any Federal Rules. In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that same conclusion." The question presented is: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620

In today's episode, we are talking today about a recent Third Circuit decision that addressed how an employer's computer use policy might interact with state and federal laws that protect electronically stored confidential information. Subscribe to our podcast today to stay up to date on employment issues from law experts worldwide.Read Denise's article here.Host: Tara Stingley (email) (Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, LLP)Guest Speaker: Denise Elliott (email) (McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC / Eastern Pennsylvania)Support the showRegister on the ELA website here to receive email invitations to future programs.

Federalism: May New Jersey impose a residency requirement on those seeking medical aid in dying? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:26:34 EDT

Antitrust: Does the NCAA's 5-year rule, which counts time spent in junior college, violate the Sherman Act? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:43:22 EDT

For the precedential ruling handed down by the US Court of Appeals in the Yellow Corp appeal on September 16, 2025 - see the Court's website at https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251421p.pdf

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I unpack the latest information about the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, including details suggesting troubling parallels with other recent acts of political violence. We also cover a pair of federal appeals court rulings upholding gun-free zone restrictions in Illinois and New Jersey.

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech.First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.On June 16th, 2025, the Supreme Court granted cert to consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I look at the growing discontent among gun-rights groups with the deployment of the ATF and emphasis on gun possession arrests under President Donald Trump's federal takeover of Washington, DC's policing. We also cover the odd legal manuevering in the Third Circuit that may lead to a new circuit split on the constitutionality of so-called assault weapons bans. Then we discuss a Tenth Circuit ruling against New Mexico's gun sales waiting period, a new suit against a major gun-control group, and Florida's request for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own gun laws.

Jeffrey Pritchard, Legal Director of the Coalition for Political Forecasting, analyzes lawsuits about Kalshi's sports contracts and their implications for prediction markets. Rule3O3 discusses Indian-American gender divides and the impact of childhood grievances on politics. Timestamps 0:11: Chougule introduces segment with Pritchard 1:07: Chougule introduces Rule3O3 segment 1:28: Mamdani victory 2:10: Intro ends 4:10: Pritchard segment begins 4:13: Why Kalshi wants to be regulated under federal law 4:41: State regulation 6:34: CFTC 7:24: State compliance costs 7:43: Kalshi's goal 9:09: Liquidity 10:59: Criticisms of Kalshi 11:08: Zubkoff tweet 12:40: Pritchard agreement with Zubkoff 12:54: Contradictions in Kalshi's position 13:41 : Mansour response to Zubkoff 14:37: Pritchard response to Mansour 16:28: Chougule's view of Kalshi sports contracts 18:28: Chougule defends Kalshi 19:46: Market demand for sports betting 20:24: The need to attract sports bettors  21:22: Regulatory environment 22:53: Retail traders 24:01: Gaming industry 29:48: Lawsuits 29:58: Nevada 30:37: New Jersey 31:15: Maryland 31:23: Illinois 31:46: Third Circuit 32:11: Timing 32:24 : Pritchard segment ends 32:39: Rule 3O3 segment begins 32:41: Gender divides among Indian-Americans 32:54: Saira Rao 33:22: White women 35:51: Finding an edge through elite thinking 36:06: Childhood trauma 36:57: Outsider psychology 37:34: Political biographies 38:20: UVA rape accusation 40:31: Crime demographics in mainstream media 42:41: Rule3O3 segment ends 42:57: DC August Forecasting and Prediction Markets meetup Star Spangled Gamblers is a podcast on betting and winning real money on politics. SUPPORT US: Patreon: www.patreon.com/starspangledgamblers FOLLOW US ON TWITTER/X: @ssgamblers VISIT OUR WEBPAGE: www.starspangledgamblers.com  Trade at Polymarket.com, the world's largest prediction market. Join us for our monthly DC Forecasting & Prediction Markets meetup on Thursday, August 14 from 6-9pm. We're returning to Rocklands BBQ in Arlington a few blocks from the Virginia Sq-GMU metrorail stop on the Orange/Silver line. Free parking also available. We'll be in the private space upstairs; head to the back of the restaurant, and up the stairs on your left. Our guest speaker this month is Ambassador Tom Miller. A 29-year career diplomat, Ambassador Miller's experience in the Foreign Service spanned many continents, including posts in Greece, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, Thailand as well as the State Department in Washington, where he worked on North Africa, the Middle East, and counter-terrorism issues. From 2019 to 2022, Tom was Chair of the Board of the US subsidiary of Intralot, Inc., a US corporation that runs lotteries in 11 states. Last-minute/onsite walk-in RSVPs here on this Partiful event page are welcomed! https://partiful.com/e/2VIW9cQaw6pexbaQSmUh?f=1&photo=all Who are we? We are prediction market traders on prediction markets like Kalshi, Manifold, PredictIt, and Polymarket, forecasters (e.g. on Metaculus and Good Judgment Open), sports bettors (e.g. on FanDuel, DraftKings, and other sportsbooks), consumers of forecasting (or related) content (e.g. Star Spangled Gamblers, Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin, Scott Alexander's Astral Codex Ten), effective altruists, rationalists, futurists, and data scientists. Forecast on Manifold how many people will attend meetups this year: https://manifold.markets/dglid/how-many-attendees-will-there-be-at?play=true This meetup is hosted by the Forecasting Meetup Network. Help us grow the forecasting community to positively influence the future by supporting us with an upvote, comment, or pledge on Manifund: https://manifund.org/projects/forecasting-meetup-network---washington-dc-pilot-4-meetups Get notified whenever a new meetup is scheduled and learn more about the Forecasting Meetup Network here: https://bit.ly/forecastingmeetupnetwork Join our Discord to connect with others in the community between monthly meetups: https://discord.com/invite/hFn3yukSwv

In today's episode of iGaming Daily, sponsored by Optimove, SBC Media Managing Editor Jessica Welman is joined by International Masters of Gaming Law (IMGL) President and Jones Walker partner Marc Dunbar and they tackle the legal mess that is Kalshi sports contracts.Dunbar gives his tips on which courts to pay attention to and offers an idea of just how long this legal battle is going to stretch on. With four active court cases and two of those in the appeals courts, there is a lot to break down, but Dunbar clears the signal from the noise and offers his insight on what judges will focus on and why the PASPA repeal is a good case to use to benchmark expectations.Host: Jessica WelmanGuests: Marc DunbarProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldiGaming Daily is also now on TikTok. Make sure to follow us at iGaming Daily Podcast (@igaming_daily_podcast) | TikTok for bite-size clips from your favourite podcast. Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.Article Linkshttps://sbcamericas.com/2025/08/03/kalshi-injunction-maryland-loss/https://sbcamericas.com/2025/08/01/maryland-sport-contract-ruling-kalshi/

The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. Today on Cut to the Chase, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation. He explains how this case differs from the Purdue Pharma/Sackler opioid litigation and why legal strategy matters. The episode reveals how survivors may receive only pennies on the dollar, while insurance companies and institutions that haven't filed for bankruptcy avoid further accountability. Then, survivor and advocate Curtis Garrison addresses powerful new laws in Texas and Missouri that ban the use of NDAs to silence survivors of child sexual abuse. These legal changes are helping victims speak out, heal, and protect others from harm. What to expect in this episode: Circuit Conflict: How the Third Circuit's Boy Scouts bankruptcy ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in Purdue Pharma “Pennies on the Dollar” Justice: Why thousands of survivors are receiving as little as 1.5% of their claims from a $30 billion pool Who Benefits? The controversial role of plaintiff firms and insurers in shaping the underfunded settlement Justice Delayed: How years of procedural delays and legal stays have eroded survivor compensation and trust Legislative Breakthroughs: How Texas and Missouri are leading the charge by banning NDAs that silence child abuse victims Trey's Law: The story behind one family's fight to protect future survivors and pass meaningful reform What's Next in Court: The path forward for potential Supreme Court review and future mass tort bankruptcy cases Lawyer Action Plan: How attorneys can support clients, push for legislative reform, and avoid similar outcomes in future settlements Key Actionable Takeaways: Audit your use of NDAs in abuse cases to ensure you're not silencing survivors, especially in states where such clauses are now banned. Stay current on court rulings like Purdue Pharma and Boy Scouts to understand how legal precedents may impact third-party releases and mass tort strategies. Push for full transparency in settlement agreements so clients clearly understand how much is funded, how much they'll actually receive, and the risks of appeals. Support survivor-focused legislation by joining advocacy efforts to eliminate statutes of limitations and expand legal protections nationwide.   Stay tuned for more updates, and don't miss our next deep dive on Cut to the Chase: Podcast with Gregg Goldfarb!   Subscribe, rate, review, and share this episode of the Cut to the Chase: Podcast!   Resources: Speak Out to Stop Child Sexual Abuse: https://soscsa.org Jason Joy & Associates: https://www.jasonjoylaw.com Connect with Jason on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-joy-595a3416 Listen to our first Boy Scouts breakdown (Feb 2024) with Jason Joy: https://bit.ly/4m62Y3s  Listen to our last Boy Scouts update (Dec 2024) with Jason and Curtis: https://bit.ly/45einZU   This episode was produced and brought to you by Reignite Media.

Emil Bove, the president's former lawyer, was just confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The only place to go from there is the Supreme Court — not that the president needs any help there. This episode was produced by Denise Guerra and Hady Mawajdeh, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Avishay Artsy and Gabrielle Berbey, engineered by Patrick Boyd and Andrea Kristinsdottir, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. Emil Bove has been confirmed to serve as a federal appellate judge. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thursday, July 31st, 2025Today, Emil Bove is confirmed to the Third Circuit after it's revealed the DoJ IG lost whistleblower complaints; CBS unveils new inconsistencies with the Epstein jail video; the House Oversight Committee has rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's demand for immunity in exchange for her testimony; the Trump regime has scrapped its plan to impound health and research funding; a new Texas district map adds five safe Republican House seats; Kamala Harris announces she is not running for governor of California; 12 Democratic members of Congress are suing ICE for access to internment camps; the DOJ has filed its brief to get the Epstein grand jury materials and it's only for 2 witnesses; Schumer invokes a rarely used law to get at the Epstein files; and Allison and Dana deliver the good news.Thank You, Helix27% Off Sitewide, when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans.Guest: ‎Ben SheehanPolitics Made Easy - Ben Sheehan SubstackCivics Made Easy YouTube Playlist:How America Became a Two-Party Nation | Civics Made Easy (PBS)Civics Made Easy | PBSStoriesSeeking transparency on the Epstein files, Senate Democrats invoke the ‘rule of five' | MSNBCHouse Oversight Committee rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's request for immunity in exchange for her testimony | NBC NewsTexas map would add five safe Republican seats. What it means for the midterms. - The Washington PostTrump Administration Scraps Effort to Pause Health-Research Funding - WSJHouse Dems Sue ICE For Blocking Oversight on Immigration Facilities | Democracy DocketKamala Harris will not run for California governor, opening door for 2028 run | The Washington PostGood Trouble Talks from professors, experts, and great storytellers—hosted in bars. No slides. No homework. Just interesting ideas in a casual setting. The Social Study, @thesocial.study - Instagram, @thesocial.study | TikTokOur Donation LinksMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackFrom The Good NewsWashington State's Paid Family and Medical LeaveEosinophilic gastroenteritis: diagnosis and clinical perspectives - PMCMast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS): Symptoms & TreatmentCURED FoundationFabric Workshop Knoxville TN - Facebook groupNationwide Anti-Trump 'Families First' Protest Planned for July 26 - NewsweekAPPEARANCES – DANA GOLDBERGReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Donate to the MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory FundMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beans Federal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts

President Donald Trump has nominated loyal associates to influential positions over and over. But one recent pick for the federal bench has legal experts and many lawmakers particularly up in arms. The Senate voted Tuesday to begin considering former Trump defense attorney Emil Bove for a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals judge for the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.Bove, the president's former defense attorney and now a senior Justice Department official, was the subject of a recent whistleblower complaint. According to that complaint, Bove suggested defying court orders to advance Trump's immigration agenda.Democrats and at least one Republican have vowed to do everything possible to keep him from being confirmed. We discuss who Bove is and the implications for the judiciary if his nomination goes through.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This Day in Legal History: Grant DiesOn July 23, 1885, Ulysses S. Grant—former president and Union general—died of throat cancer at age 63. While honored as a national hero, Grant spent his final years in financial ruin due to a high-profile fraud scandal. He had invested heavily in a Wall Street brokerage firm, Grant & Ward, run in part by his son and the scheming financier Ferdinand Ward. Ward operated what would now be recognized as a Ponzi scheme, using incoming investments to pay off earlier clients and falsely promising high returns. When the scheme collapsed in 1884, Grant lost virtually everything, and the public was stunned to see a former president facing poverty.Rather than accept charity, Grant chose to write his memoirs as a final act of financial restoration. He completed them just days before his death, and their publication by Mark Twain's publishing house ultimately secured his family's financial future. Meanwhile, Ferdinand Ward was arrested, tried, and convicted of grand larceny in 1885. He served six years in prison, and his case became one of the most publicized white-collar crime prosecutions of the 19th century.Legally, the case underscored the absence of federal oversight in securities and investment practices during the Gilded Age. There were no federal securities laws or regulatory agencies at the time, and prosecution of fraud fell to local authorities using traditional theft statutes. The scandal later became a reference point in discussions around the need for more structured investor protections, eventually influencing the rationale for the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Grant's financial downfall, despite his stature, revealed the vulnerability of even prominent individuals to unchecked financial fraud.A federal judge ruled that President Trump unlawfully removed two Democratic members of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) board. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali held that the firings of Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka in April violated congressional protections that limit when board members can be dismissed. The decision orders both officials reinstated. At the time of their removal, only one board member remained—Republican Chairman Kyle Hauptman—leaving a regulatory gap in oversight of the $2.3 trillion credit union sector.Harper, initially appointed by Trump in 2019 and later elevated to chairman by President Biden, was serving a term set to expire in 2027. Otsuka was confirmed in 2023 with a term ending in 2029. Both argued their dismissals were unprecedented in the NCUA's nearly 50-year history. The Trump administration defended the firings by asserting broad presidential authority to remove such officials at will, a position echoed in other disputes over the limits of executive power at independent agencies. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that certain regulatory positions are protected from politically motivated removals.US judge rules Trump illegally fired two Democratic members of credit union agency | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed a class action lawsuit brought by eight Malian citizens against Hershey, Nestlé, and five other major cocoa companies. The plaintiffs alleged they were trafficked as children and forced to work under brutal conditions on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast. They sought to hold the companies liable under U.S. laws against human trafficking and forced labor. However, the court ruled 3-0 that the complaint failed to plausibly connect the plaintiffs' forced labor to cocoa specifically sourced by the defendants.Judge Justin Walker wrote that while the companies purchase a large share of Ivorian cocoa, the complaint did not establish that the cocoa harvested by the plaintiffs ended up in the defendants' supply chains. The court emphasized that a general connection to a region is insufficient to meet legal standards for liability under trafficking laws. The trial court had previously ruled in favor of the companies in 2022.The plaintiffs' attorney, Terry Collingsworth, criticized the ruling, arguing that global corporations are effectively shielded from accountability by the opacity of their supply chains. He said his clients are considering further legal action. This decision follows a March 2024 ruling by the same court that dismissed similar claims against tech companies over child labor in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Hershey, Nestle, other cocoa companies defeat appeal of child slavery lawsuit | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey cannot enforce its 2021 law banning new contracts for immigrant detention facilities. The court sided with CoreCivic, a major private prison operator, which had sued the state over the law's potential to block the renewal of its contract for a 300-bed detention center near Newark Airport. In a 2-1 decision, the panel held that New Jersey's ban unconstitutionally interferes with federal immigration enforcement, which relies heavily on private detention centers.Writing for the majority, Judge Stephanos Bibas stated that states cannot obstruct the federal government's operational choices, including its use of private contractors. The ruling emphasized that immigration enforcement is a federal domain, and state laws cannot disrupt its execution. Judge Thomas Ambro dissented, arguing the law only regulated state and local government actions, not the federal government directly.The case has national implications, as the federal government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has defended its authority to contract with private facilities for immigration detention. Critics, including New Jersey's attorney general and immigrant rights groups, argue that privatized detention presents serious health and safety risks and prioritizes profit over human rights. The ruling follows similar court decisions, including a 2022 case blocking California's comparable law while upholding a narrower Illinois statute.US court blocks New Jersey ban on immigrant detention in CoreCivic lawsuit | ReutersA federal judge in Manhattan formally dismissed a mail fraud case that had been effectively resolved over three decades ago but never officially closed. The defendant, Yousef Elyaho, was charged in 1991 with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In 1993, he entered a deferred prosecution agreement, and his bond was released, meaning the case should have been dismissed if he complied with the agreement. However, due to an apparent administrative oversight, the case remained open on the docket for 32 years.No legal action occurred until 1999, when the case was oddly marked as reassigned to “Judge Unassigned,” and then sat idle for another 26 years. It was only in 2025 that the case came to the attention of U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, who officially closed it. Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Balsamello acknowledged in a court filing that the government had intended to dismiss the case back in 1993.This unusual situation highlights how clerical errors can leave cases unresolved, despite defendants meeting their legal obligations. The judge's action brings formal closure to a prosecution that, in practice, ended decades ago.US ends a mail fraud case, 32 years late | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes this week:I draw a comparison between ancient Egypt's pyramid-building and the current surge in data center construction across the United States. In both cases, monumental building serves more as a symbol of legitimacy and power than as a practical investment in public welfare. Pharaohs once drained resources to erect ever-larger pyramids, eventually destabilizing their own society. Today, states offer enormous tax incentives to attract data centers—facilities that often generate minimal long-term employment while consuming huge amounts of electricity and water.In the piece, I focus on how these data centers, like the pyramids, have become political symbols. They are marketed as engines of innovation and economic growth but often leave the public footing the bill for infrastructure costs and strained utilities. For example, Pennsylvania passed a $75 million tax exemption for data centers, and similar policies have ballooned to over $1 billion in Texas. Meanwhile, the promised economic benefits frequently fail to materialize.I argue that this race to build tech infrastructure, without considering long-term sustainability or community impact, mirrors a historical pathology: spectacle overtaking substance. These facilities may one day be ruins of a different kind—monuments not to progress, but to political ambition and misaligned priorities.The Pharaohs Built Pyramids—We Build Data Centers 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

Civil Procedure: Is the listing of a separate "charge" on a bill, separate from the good or service purchased, misleading if it is used by the vendor to make a profit? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 11:9:41 EDT

The Senate gets moving on Donald Trump's appeals-court nominees, including Emil Bove for the Third Circuit, despite a Democratic walkout of the Judiciary Committee meeting. What questions remain about Bove's record at the Justice Department, including his handling of the Eric Adams case? And could his appointment affect whether other judges choose to retire? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Thursday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Clay: Sorry, NY The Senate’s landmark vote to defund PBS and NPR, a conservative goal that has been decades in the making. Clay and Buck frame this as a generational shift in media accountability, pending final approval from the House. The rise of Zohran Mamdani, a New York City mayoral candidate whose far-left platform includes abolishing private property and implementing socialist economic reforms. Clay and Buck debate whether Republicans should strategically allow Mamdani to win, arguing that his radicalism could serve as a wake-up call for voters and galvanize GOP turnout in the 2026 midterms. They suggest that Democrats embracing Mamdani could backfire nationally, especially in swing districts. The Audience Weighs In Calls and emails split between defending New York City and supporting Clay’s provocative idea of “sacrificing” NYC to expose Democratic extremism. The hosts also highlight Elizabeth Warren’s public distancing from Mamdani, interpreting it as a sign of internal Democratic discomfort with his ideology. Alan Dershowitz on Epstein Alan Dershowitz joins the show to discuss the Jeffrey Epstein case, recent developments in the DOJ, and media misinformation. Dershowitz defends Trump against claims of involvement in Epstein’s crimes, asserting there is no credible evidence linking Trump to any wrongdoing. He also debunks conspiracy theories about Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence, calling them baseless and antisemitic. Dershowitz advocates for full transparency in the Epstein files, including both accusations and exculpatory evidence, to ensure fairness in public judgment. TN Sen. Marsha Blackburn Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, offering deep insights into the latest conservative legislative victories and political developments. The hour opens with Blackburn discussing the Senate’s advancement of a major rescission package, which includes efforts to defund NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—an initiative dating back to the Reagan era. She highlights the elimination of wasteful federal spending, such as funding for vegan food in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda, projecting a potential $90 billion in savings over a decade. The conversation shifts to President Trump’s early-term accomplishments, with Blackburn praising his swift action on the economy, border security, and crime. She emphasizes his commitment to promises made, including securing the southern border, reducing inflation, and rebuilding the military. The hosts and Blackburn also discuss the “No Tax on Tips” bill and a proposed $6,000 annual Social Security tax deduction for seniors, framing these as key components of the GOP’s 2024 platform. Judicial appointments take center stage as Blackburn details the contentious confirmation of Emil Bove to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Despite Democratic opposition due to Bove’s past legal defense of Trump, Republicans pushed the nomination through committee. Blackburn criticizes Democrats for obstructing judicial and law enforcement appointments, urging the GOP to push confirmations forward without delay. The hour also explores Tennessee’s economic success, with Blackburn crediting the state’s constitutional ban on income tax and fiscally conservative governance for attracting businesses and residents. She contrasts this with the rise of far-left politics in cities like New York, referencing the candidacy of Zohran Mamdani and warning of the dangers of socialist policies. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Synopsis: What do courtroom litigation, computational biology, and fibrosis drug development have in common? In this episode of Biotech 2050, host Alok Tayi speaks with Ahmed Mousa, CEO of Vicore Pharma, to explore his unconventional journey from biotech law to the C-suite. Ahmed shares how Vicore is advancing a first-in-class therapy targeting the angiotensin II type 2 receptor to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF)—a devastating disease with limited options and poor survival. The conversation dives into how AI is reshaping drug discovery, the promise of precision in early-stage candidate design, and the regulatory and data challenges biotech must overcome. Ahmed also reflects on leading a Swedish-listed biotech as an American CEO, and how a patient-first mission continues to fuel bold innovation across continents. Biography: Ahmed Mousa is the Chief Executive Officer of Vicore Pharma (VICO.ST), where he leads the company's mission to advance angiotensin II type 2 receptor agonists for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other serious diseases. Under his leadership, Vicore continues to expand its clinical pipeline and global presence in respiratory and fibrotic diseases. Previously, Ahmed served as Senior Vice President, Chief Business Officer, and General Counsel at Pieris Pharmaceuticals (PIRS). In this role, he was the site head for the company's Boston office and oversaw business development, portfolio strategy, centralized project leadership, and quality assurance. He also led Pieris' legal and intellectual property functions, including licensing, corporate governance, and management of the company's global patent portfolio. Before joining Pieris, Ahmed was an attorney at Covington & Burling LLP, where he advised pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies on a range of regulatory and intellectual property matters. He also served as a law clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and began his legal career as an IP associate at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Ahmed holds dual undergraduate degrees in Molecular Biology and Government from Cornell University, a Master's in Biotechnology from Johns Hopkins University, and a J.D. with honors from Georgetown Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Georgetown Journal of International Law.

Free Speech: Can a professor's off-campus use of racist speech constitute a campus disruption sufficient to terminate him from the university? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:8:5 EDT

First Amendment: May New Jersey prohibit the release of personal information about public officials and employees? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 11:35:37 EDT

Episode 67 In 1989, a fire at a religious camp in Pennsylvania claimed the life of 20-year-old Ji Yun Lee. Her father, Han Tak Lee, a Korean immigrant with no criminal record, was swiftly arrested, tried, and sentenced to life in prison. But what seemed like a clear-cut arson case quickly unraveled into a cautionary tale of flawed fire science, cultural bias, and the dangers of rushing to judgment. In this episode, we examine how prosecutors built a case on burn patterns and cultural ignorance—and how modern fire investigation and one relentless expert helped expose the truth. Han Tak Lee spent 24 years behind bars for a crime that science would later prove never happened. This is the story of how culture was put on trial—and how justice failed. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: From Magic to Law: The Han Tak Lee Case and Arson Investigation — National Association for Public Defense https://publicdefenders.us/blogs/from-magic-to-law-the-han-tak-lee-case-and-arson-investigation Locked Away for 24 Years, Han Tak Lee Still Feels Imprisoned — The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/nyregion/locked-away-for-24-years-han-tak-lee-still-feels-imprisoned.html Han Tak Lee v. Houtzdale — U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2015) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-3rd-circuit/1710954.html Old Arson-Murder Rap Tossed, Man is Set Free— USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/22/arson-murder-han-tak-lee/14451491/ Kim Honors Han Tak Lee with Legislation — Queens Chronicle https://www.qchron.com/editions/north/kim-honors-han-tak-lee-with-legislation/article_ddc61e5b-e920-5ac7-a1e9-18955a35763f.html Han Tak Lee Case Overview — International Network for Innocent Arson Defendants https://www.niad.info/Han_Tak_Lee.html Han Tak Lee — Pennsylvania Innocence Project https://painnocence.org/hantaklee A Calculated Arson: The Han Tak Lee Case — John J. Lentini https://www.academia.edu/38962288/A_Calculated_Arson_The_Han_Tak_Lee_case_John_Lentini Author Blurb for Upcoming Book on Han Tak Lee — David DeKok https://daviddekok.com

OA1170 - This Rapid Response Friday it's Boh-vey (yes that is how you pronounce it, probably) all day--as in former Trump defense attorney and current Trump henchman Emil Bove, now up for a seat formerly occupied by Samuel Alito on the Third Circuit. Matt ties together several different stories from the news--from January 6th to the Eric Adams prosecution to DOJ's deportations in violation of court orders--together with this week's stunning 27-page account from deep inside the DOJ provided by a former loyalist. Finally, in today's footnote: a pro se plaintiff invents a completely new way for AI to be useless in the courtroom Government's Motion to Clarify in D.H.S.. v. D.V.D.:  (filed shortly after we recorded on 6/27/25) The U.S. Supreme Court's order in D.H.S. v. D.V.D. (6/23/25)  Day 1 of Emil Bove's confirmation hearing (6/25/26) Letter filed by Government Accountability Project on behalf of Erez Reuveni (6/25/25) Oral arguments before New York's First Appellate Division (3/26/25)(clip starts at 19:29) Federal magistrate Barbara Holmes's detention review decision in U.S. v. Kilmar Abrego Garcia (6/22/25)  

The Trump administration's war on the judiciary continues, and this time he's suing judges. Also, he's trying to install his henchman Emil Bove in the Third Circuit as a reward for burning down the firewall between the White House and the DOJ. Luckily SCOTUS is distracting us by cramming as many horrible decisions as possible into the last two days of the term.   Links:   SCOTUS 23-1002 Hewitt v. United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1002_1p24.pdf   SCOTUS 23-1275 Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1275_e2pg.pdf   SCOTUS 23-7809 Gutierrez v. Saenz https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-7809_3e04.pdf   A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/20/ed-artau-trump-judge-nomination-florida-00415408   Erez Reuveni DOJ Whistleblower Report https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/e285ec96adf8d443/5868d536-full.pdf   Law and Chaos, The Trump Administration Is Lawless. Judges Are Adapting. [Substack post] https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/the-trump-administration-is-lawless   Tatis v. Big League Advance Fund https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/tatis-vs-big-league-advance-fund.pdf   US v. Russell [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70627303/united-states-of-america-v-russell/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes and Natalie Orpett, and University of Virginia School of Law professor Ashley Deeks, to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“Bracing for Fallout.” In a surprise move, President Trump joined Israel's military campaign against Iran over the weekend, using a specialized U.S. ordinance to hit Iranian nuclear sites that were beyond Israel's early reach. It's unclear to what extent the attack set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, and debates continue to rage whether the president's actions were wise or legal. But it did trigger an Iranian response against U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf — action that was shortly followed by a tentative U.S.-backed ceasefire between Iran and Israel. What best explains the president's decision to join the military campaign? And what will the consequences be, both in the region and back home in the United States?“Destinations Unknown.” In a short, unexplained opinion in the matter of DHS v. DVD this past week, the Supreme Court stayed a lower court preliminary injunction that had barred the Trump administration from removing immigrants to third countries with minimal procedural protections against threats of torture and other mistreatment. But the exact ramifications of this holding are unclear, as the Justice Department has now returned to the Court asking for clarification as to whether its ruling also invalidates a later order applying the class-wide prohibition in the initial preliminary injunction to a specific group of individuals. What explains the Supreme Court's odd approach in this case? And what could its broader ramifications be for the Trump administration's immigration agenda?“‘Bove the Law.” A now-public internal Justice Department whistleblower report alleges that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General—and current Third Circuit nominee—Emil Bove endorsed plans to disregard judicial orders that would have obstructed the removal of foreign nationals in directing the Department of Homeland Security that it did not need to return certain deportation flights already in the air after a judge directed as much from the bench. How serious a transgression has Bove committed if these allegations are true? And what impact will they have on his Third Circuit confirmation?In object lessons, forget day-of-the-week underpants (or pronghorn shirts)! Ben spurs on a need for more day-of-the-week monsters with the last weather report you'll ever need. Natalie is escaping, not just from reality but also from the heat, with her local bookstore, East City Bookshop. Scott shared the heartbreaking news that The Atlantic is stealing yet another Rational Security co-host emeritus as our beloved Quinta Jurecic begins her next crazy venture beneath the skies (Quinta, we miss you already!). And Ashley, channeling our bereavement at Quinta's departure, recommends Alone on the History Channel.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes and Natalie Orpett, and University of Virginia School of Law professor Ashley Deeks, to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“Bracing for Fallout.” In a surprise move, President Trump joined Israel's military campaign against Iran over the weekend, using a specialized U.S. ordinance to hit Iranian nuclear sites that were beyond Israel's early reach. It's unclear to what extent the attack set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, and debates continue to rage whether the president's actions were wise or legal. But it did trigger an Iranian response against U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf — action that was shortly followed by a tentative U.S.-backed ceasefire between Iran and Israel. What best explains the president's decision to join the military campaign? And what will the consequences be, both in the region and back home in the United States?“Destinations Unknown.” In a short, unexplained opinion in the matter of DHS v. DVD this past week, the Supreme Court stayed a lower court preliminary injunction that had barred the Trump administration from removing immigrants to third countries with minimal procedural protections against threats of torture and other mistreatment. But the exact ramifications of this holding are unclear, as the Justice Department has now returned to the Court asking for clarification as to whether its ruling also invalidates a later order applying the class-wide prohibition in the initial preliminary injunction to a specific group of individuals. What explains the Supreme Court's odd approach in this case? And what could its broader ramifications be for the Trump administration's immigration agenda?“‘Bove the Law.” A now-public internal Justice Department whistleblower report alleges that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General—and current Third Circuit nominee—Emil Bove endorsed plans to disregard judicial orders that would have obstructed the removal of foreign nationals in directing the Department of Homeland Security that it did not need to return certain deportation flights already in the air after a judge directed as much from the bench. How serious a transgression has Bove committed if these allegations are true? And what impact will they have on his Third Circuit confirmation?In object lessons, forget day-of-the-week underpants (or pronghorn shirts)! Ben spurs on a need for more day-of-the-week monsters with the last weather report you'll ever need. Natalie is escaping, not just from reality but also from the heat, with her local bookstore, East City Bookshop. Scott shared the heartbreaking news that The Atlantic is stealing yet another Rational Security co-host emeritus as our beloved Quinta Jurecic begins her next crazy venture beneath the skies (Quinta, we miss you already!). And Ashley, channeling our bereavement at Quinta's departure, recommends Alone on the History Channel.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On todays show the Fearsome Threesome talk about the UN Secretary-General referred to Trump as the "UN daddy" during a press conference, leading to humorous reactions. The conversation also touched on Trump's interactions with Zelensky and the NATO meeting, highlighting Trump's influence and the media's portrayal of events. The group discussed the impact of Trump's immigration policies, including the Supreme Court's ruling on third-country deportations and the DOJ's lawsuit against Maryland judges. They also addressed the economic growth in Argentina, the auto pen scandal involving Biden, and the backlash against JD Vance on Blue Sky. The discussion centered on political comparisons, particularly between Trump and historical figures like Jefferson and Madison. They debated the merits of Marco Rubio and JD Vance in the political landscape, noting the close competition. The conversation shifted to the nomination of a former Trump attorney to the Third Circuit, highlighting the left's opposition. They also discussed the impact of chemicals in food, advocating for government oversight and private testing to ensure safety. Don't miss it!

Paul L. Singer, Beth Bolen Chun, Abigail Stempson, Andrea deLorimier This week, a bipartisan group of 42 attorneys general filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to uphold Daniel's Law, a New Jersey statute enacted to protect public servants from ​“doxing” — i.e., maliciously posting someone else's personal information online to incite harassment or violence.

I'm standing outside the New York courthouse, just a year after Donald Trump's historic conviction for falsifying business records related to the alleged hush money scheme—hard to believe it's only been twelve months since a jury of twelve New Yorkers delivered that verdict. The courtroom drama was thick, with Trump's legal team, then led by Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, fiercely pushing back at every turn. Inside, Trump's own words echoed through the chamber as he declared, “I won the election in a massive landslide, and the people of this country understand what's gone on. This has been a weaponization of government,” right during sentencing.The battle didn't stop there. Trump's attorneys argued vehemently that the evidence used in his trial—social media posts from his official presidential Twitter account and critical testimony from Hope Hicks, his former communications director—should have been inadmissible. They contended that, especially after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling that expanded the scope of presidential immunity, much of that information couldn't be used against a sitting or former president.But Judge Juan Merchan wasn't persuaded. Even before Trump's January sentencing, his legal team tried to leverage that Supreme Court decision to get the case thrown out, yet both New York appeals courts and the Supreme Court itself rejected the effort. In a brief unsigned opinion, the nation's highest court said, “The alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump's state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.”Despite these setbacks, Trump's legal defense bench has evolved. Todd Blanche and Emil Bove have since risen to top positions at the Department of Justice. Just this week, Trump announced plans to nominate Bove—who orchestrated a significant purge at the DOJ before his Senate confirmation—to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It's a striking twist, considering Bove's role in defending Trump during his most contentious legal battles.Meanwhile, legal scrutiny over Trump's executive actions continues beyond the hush money case. On May 29, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump's emergency tariffs, with Judge Rudolph Contreras deeming them unlawful and issuing a preliminary injunction. The Department of Justice is expected to seek a review, but the momentum in federal court is clear: Trump's legal and political maneuvers are under intense examination on multiple fronts.As the anniversary of his conviction marks another chapter in this unprecedented saga, Donald Trump stands as both a former president and a criminal defendant, tenaciously fighting legal battles that continue to shape the national conversation and test the boundaries of presidential power and accountability.

For most of the second half of 20th century, the Supreme Court has wrestled with finding a balance between the Free Exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause, offering several tests to test the limits of permissible accommodation without the undue appearance of government endorsement. Among those tests has been a little-thing called the “play in the joints,” famously introduced in Walz v. Tax Commissioner of New York (1970). In this episode, I explore this concept with Falco Anthony Muscante II, whose paper in the Ave Marie Law Review is called “Play in the Joints” Among the Religion Clauses: Rebuilding the Strong Joints the Framers Formed. In our conversation, we discuss the history of the religious clause and what the framers intended, how the concept emerged and became weaponized in Locke v. Davey (2003), why the Court has latched on to the idea of state neutrality and how that impacts religion, and more. Falco Anthony Muscante II earned his J.D. in 2023 from the Duquesne University School of Law, where he served on the executive boards for the Law Review and Appellate Moot Court Board. He is an alumnus of Grove City College, where he graduated summa cum laude with a B.S. Management, minor in Pre-Law, and concentration in Human Resources. Falco is a litigation associate at a big law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, soon headed to clerk for the Third Circuit. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento

Where should the line be drawn between the government's role in stopping discrimination and a university's right to run itself? Today on Heterodox Out Loud, John Tomasi sits down with Joe Cohn, Policy Director at Heterodox Academy, to discuss the complexities of federal intervention in higher education.Cohn, a First Amendment expert, delves into the implications of recent federal actions, including those by the Trump administration, to combat anti-Semitism and enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They explore the tension between academic freedom and the necessity of preventing discrimination, examining specific cases of funding pauses and immigration enforcement actions. Cohn argues for procedural rigor in federal oversight to protect both institutional autonomy and individual rights, advocating for persuasion over censorship in addressing bigotry. In This Episode:

https://vimeo.com/1048354337?share=copy#t=0 https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2025/1/19/2025-01-20-secure-20-act-proposed-guidance This week we look at: IRS updates residential energy credit Fact Sheet, adds details about the PIN requirements that take effect for 2025 property Proposed regulations on catch-up contributions added by the SECURE 2.0 Act Proposed regulations on the automatic enrollment provisions of IRC §414A US Supreme Court agrees to review a Third Circuit ruling on Tax Court jurisdiction in a Collection Due Process case IRS issues final regulations on resolution of tax controversies by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals Under TFA of 2019

This week we look at: IRS updates residential energy credit Fact Sheet, adds details about the PIN requirements that take effect for 2025 property Proposed regulations on catch-up contributions added by the SECURE 2.0 Act Proposed regulations on the automatic enrollment provisions of IRC §414A US Supreme Court agrees to review a Third Circuit ruling on Tax Court jurisdiction in a Collection Due Process case IRS issues final regulations on resolution of tax controversies by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals Under TFA of 2019

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I recap the first confirmation hearing for Donald Trump's Attorney General nominee, Pam Bondi. We talk about why it could spell trouble for the political influence of gun-rights advocates. We also cover the Supreme Court's latest rejection of multiple Second Amendment appeals and where things stand with a closely-watched pending 'assault weapon' ban case. Finally, we wrap up with discussions around the Third Circuit's re-vindication of the carry rights of young adults in Pennsylvania, a guest post on the questionable state of firearms forensics, and a collection of key gun stories from outside The Reload.

This week, while recognizing that it's far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations. We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025. PAGA Ruling in California In what's seen as a win for California employers, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA action. Third Circuit Limits NLRB's Authority Over the last year, the NLRB expanded its enforcement priorities and tested the limits of its authority. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit finished 2024 with a rebuke of those efforts, curbing the NLRB's authority to order legal relief. New Employment Laws in 2025 A new year brings new laws and regulations, many of which took effect on January 1. Employers can stay up to date on local and state laws and regulations by downloading our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app, which is updated each February. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw374 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Today Jim Garrity revisits the headaches caused by examining lawyers who frequently interrupt your deponents' answers. To combat this problem, Garrity offers you a six-pronged strategy for stopping this practice and/or creating a strong record that will allow your deponents to later add materially to their interrupted testimony, whether by errata sheet, affidavit, or live testimony. Courts are far more likely to allow that where you've used Garrity's strategies. (By the way, if you have a moment, would you send our production team a small "thank you" by leaving us a five-star rating wherever you listen to our podcast? It takes just 30 seconds - we timed it! - and it's deeply appreciated. Our crew devotes a great deal of time to research and production, and the podcast is not only free, but also uncluttered by pesky advertising. Thank you so much.)SHOW NOTESIn re Injectafer Prod. Liab. Litig. ALL CASES, No. CV 19-276, 2022 WL 4280491  (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2022) (“Defendants propose. . . changing “It would be one of the—yes” to “It would be one of the sources of information. Yes.” This change is not necessarily inconsistent with the original testimony because it appears that the deponent was cut off or otherwise stopped speaking in the middle of the sentence and is justified as making the answer more complete. See id. While finishing a thought is not necessarily a proper justification for an errata modification, here it appears to be justified and within the flexible scope of the Third Circuit's approach to Rule 30(e)")Grey v.  Amex Assurance Company, 2002 WL 31242195, No. B152467 (Ct. App. Calif. Oct. 7, 2002) (reversing summary judgment in part because trial court abused discretion in failing to consider errata sheet containing “changes. . . made because the witness was interrupted before completing her answers;” further noting that the defendant “. . .took the risk that [the plaintiff's] corrections would bring some of its undisputed facts into controversy”)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 512 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (denying, without prejudice, motion to strike errata sheet, as motion failed to specifically discuss many of the 67 changes defendant wanted stricken; noting that “The reason given for the vast majority of the 67 changes was that [Plaintiff] “did not finish” her answer during the deposition, though the transcript does not reflect that she was interrupted and prevented from doing so,” and outlining how various courts and commentators deal with the extent to which changes to testimony can be made on errata sheets)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, F.R.D. 504, 512, fn. 5 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (noting that, if one looks back at the early origins of the rule on errata sheets, quoted in this opinion, it may be argued that the intent of the drafters was indeed to limit changes to clerical-level mistakes, not to allow substantive changes): "One commentator who examined the history of the rule dating back to the original Equity Rule 67, and the twin Equity Rules 50 and 51 that succeeded it, concluded that Rule 30 was never intended to allow for more than the correction of transcription errors: "Appeals to the plain language of Rule 30(e) are incomplete and misleading without reference to the Rule's transcriptive focus. Read in historical context, the Rule appears to be distinctly clerical, ill-equipped—and never intended—to embrace substantive changes. Although its wording has changed over time, Rule 30(e) has retained one modest but steady focus: the who, how, and what of accurate transcription. The Rule is meant to secure an accurate representation of what was said, leaving to another day (and frequently to the mechanisms of Rule 56) the question of the meaning and implication of the deposition content for purposes of material factual disputes. The common understanding of Rule 30(e) has moved far afield from that mild ambition, giving us the confusion and circuit split we know today. Read in light of its history, the Rule clearly embraces a transcriptive focus. Ruehlmann, Jr., supra, at 915. Rule 30(e)'s counterpart in Illinois state court, Supreme Court Rule 207(a), was amended to limit corrections to transcription errors because the “potential for testimonial abuse” had “become increasingly evident as witnesses submit[ted] lengthy errata sheets in which their testimony [was] drastically altered....” Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 207(a), Rules Committee Comment to Paragraph (a) (1995)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Deposition Dilemmas: Vexatious Scheduling and Errata Sheets, 12 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 60 (1998), for its author's argument that Rule 30(e) permits “opposing counsel, at her choosing, to introduce both versions to the jury”)Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir.2000) (observing, as to changes in errata sheet, that what the witness “tried to do, whether or not honestly, was to change his deposition from what he said to what he meant;” quoting the common refrain that “a deposition is not a take home examination,” the court remarked that while this was a “questionable basis for altering a deposition.” the court would allow the change under Rule 30(e) since the rule expressly “authorizes ‘changes in form or substance'.”Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-895, 2018 WL 1472527 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2018) (refusing, based on Sixth Circuit's strict interpretation of errata sheet changes, to allow “. . .impermissible substantive alterations to Tchankpa's testimony. . .”, including explanations stating “Incomplete; I was cut off,” allegedly because “defense counsel interrupted him;” “In this circuit, a deponent cannot make substantive changes to his deposition testimony under Rule 30(e) based on defense counsel's interruptions. . .”)Hirsch v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) When a party makes changes to his deposition pursuant to Rule 30(e), the original answers remain part of the record. See Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he rule requires that the original transcript be retained (it is implicit in the provision of that rule that any changes made by the deponent are to be appended to the transcript) so that the trier of fact can evaluate the honesty of the alteration.”); Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (“Subject to the rules of evidence, the jury is permitted to hear the original answer, the change, and the reasons for the change and decide – in the context of all the other evidence – whether to credit either answer and what weight to assign it.”); Coleman v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 997 F. Supp. 1197, 1205 (D. Ariz. 1998) (accepting the argument that “a change in a deposition statement does not eradicate the deponent's original answers”); Lugtig v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641-42 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (“Nothing in the language of Rule 30(e) requires or implies that the original answers are to be stricken when changes are made.”). The reason for this is obvious: “[t]he Rule is less likely to be abused if the deponent knows that ... the original answers[,] as well as the changes and the reasons will be subject to examination by the trier of fact")Hirsh v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) (court-ordered second deposition of plaintiff did not extend deadline for submitting errata sheet following delivery of transcript from first deposition; counsel claimed he “believed that the first deposition did not ‘count,' because it was ordered [to] be redone, and therefore corrections were reserved”; errata sheet rejected as untimely)Neutrion Dev. Corp. v. Sonosite, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 529, 550 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (allowing and considering – without apparent challenge or concern – expert's substantive changes to errata sheet, necessitated “. . . [because he] began to explain the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess, but was interrupted by Neutrino's counsel”)Trout v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 339 F. App'x 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting argument made by defendant that plaintiff “. . . is not entitled to benefit from her corrected deposition testimony because her counsel did not rehabilitate her statements during the deposition,” meaning plaintiff's counsel could and should have asked followup questions while the deposition was in progress)Bahrami v. Maxie Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-4483-SCJ-AJB, 2014 WL 11517837, at fn. 2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2014) (Although Plaintiff's brief in response to Defendant's objections discusses a long day and interruptions by Defendant's counsel during the deposition, those reasons were not provided in the errata sheet. The Court also notes that if Defendant's counsel interrupted Plaintiff such that he could not elaborate much as he wished, Plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity afterwards to examine her client on those points and did not do so.”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(B) (federal rule of civil procedure on errata sheets, which expressly contemplates possible changes in form or substance)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (requiring objections not just to evidentiary issues but to a party's conduct, to the manner of taking the deposition, and to any other aspect of the deposition)Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B)(i) (requiring objections to errors or irregularities at an oral examination if they relate to the manner of taking the deposition, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time)

Tort: Can an online betting app be held liable for preying on problem gamblers? - Argued: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 9:3:23 EDT

The generation of political leaders that produced the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Era no doubt saw themselves as working to make one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc. matter less to one’s future prospects. And in many ways, they clearly succeeded. They would almost certainly be surprised and disappointed to learn how much emphasis those factors are still getting. Why has this happened? Is the problem that our focus on issues of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, gender, etc. has gone too far? Or is the problem that we haven’t yet focused on them enough? To what extent has the law helped create the current state of affairs? How can the law help us move in a better direction?Featuring: Mr. Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Tyler Austin Harper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Bates CollegeHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawMs. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Contributing Editor, City JournalModerator: Hon. Paul Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?Featuring:Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova UniversityHon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionHon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

As international courts have addressed issues arising from the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars, we will explore whether engagement with the ICC and ICJ institutions is beneficial or harmful to the United States and how U.S. policymakers should approach these courts.Feature:Hon. Charles Brower, Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Arbitrator Member, Twenty Essex ChambersProf. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs, Notre Dame Law School; Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights ClinicProf. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University LawProf. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law and Professor of the Practice of Political Science, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Administrative Law: Does a statute that empowers Medicare to negotiate the prices it pays for prescription drugs violate the pharmaceutical company's due process rights? - Argued: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 14:12:40 EDT

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Sam Tanenbaum (⁠LinkedIn⁠) guide you through the latest updates in the sports law world as we MLB playoffs continue to heat up and the NFL season is in mid-season form. The two first cover the recent developments in Deshaun Watson's settlement with another related case to his initial controversy as well as the arrest of Jabrill Peppers. Which, has led the NFL to place Peppers on the player-exempt list. The duo also analyze the NCAA's preliminary approval of the House v. NCAA settlement by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, discussing the potential impacts on athletes and college sports governance. They cover the legal battle that has ensued over the ownership of Shohei Ohtani's 50th home run ball, with fan Max Matus filing a lawsuit claiming the ball was wrongfully taken from him by Chris Belanski. The auction for the ball is currently paused pending a hearing. Dan and Sam discuss the ongoing lawsuit between Devin Haney and Ryan Garcia, including allegations of battery, fraud, and breach of contract filed by Haney in September. Conduct Detrimental has launched its 2024 Sports Law Writing Competition, focusing on sports and employment law. The prompt challenges participants to analyze the Third Circuit's economic realities test for assessing student-athlete employment claims. Submissions are due by November 8, 2024. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring Sam Tanenbaum (LinkedIn) Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

It's News Day Tuesday! Sam is back from vacation, and he and Emma break down the biggest headlines from over the long weekend. First, they run through updates on the final 9 weeks before the US presidential election, Russia's bombardment on Ukraine, domestic dissent to Israel's expanding offensive as they turn to the West Bank, Unite Here labor action, Trump's Arlington fiasco, RFK's ballot fiasco, and Venezuela's political crisis, before parsing through JD Vance's Dimaggio-esque run of the most clinically insane misogyny. Next, they dive into updates on the presidential race with the election just 63 days out, tackling Biden's backdown bump and RFK's failed attempt to remove himself from swing-state ballots before parsing deeper through swing-state polling as the Harris campaign comes into full swing. Next, Sam and Emma look to a devastating and dominant decision coming out of the Third Circuit, with TikTok's role in boosting an adolescent social media “Blackout” challenge resulting in the accidental death of a 10-year-old and producing the first successful challenge to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that established social media platforms as third-party speech, finally allowing for social media megacorporations to be held to account for their active curation of the speech that occurs on their sites. They then look to Israel's shifting fronts in their ethnic cleansing of Palestine, first unpacking this weekend's news about the death of six hostages in Palestinian captivity, and the underrecognized role that both Biden and Bibi's uninhibited bloodlust played in making these murders possible, wrapping up the first half of the show by diving deep into Donald Trump's eagerness to take on Zionist money in his continued commitment to the erasure of Palestine, including a plan to fund the annexation of the West Bank, and exploring what David Friedman's take on the issue can illuminate for us all. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma have an expansive conversation with John from San Antonio with the 2024 US Presidential Election some nine weeks away, tackling historical parallels, the politics of polling, and the swing-state situation with polls. Brett Cooper (aka Femme Shapiro) celebrates the seminal moment of a conspiracy-backed grifter endorsing another conspiracy-backed grifter, Adam from New Hampshire unpacks AOC's critique of the Green Party and helps the show dive deep into the idea of Harris separating herself from Biden's zionist bloodlust, plus, your calls and IMs! Donate IF YOU CAN to friend of the show Mohamed Aldaghma's Gaza Bakery project to help displaced families: https://www.gofundme.com/f/gaza-bakery-feeding-displaced-families Check out the LIMITED EDITION Vergogna shirt on the MR shop!: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/collections/all-items/products/the-majority-report-vergogna-t-shirt Check out Tony Y, who designed the Vergogna shirt's website!: https://linktr.ee/tonyyanick AND! Check out Anne from Portland's website for HER Vergogna t-shirt! INQUIRE MORE HERE FOR DETAILS!: https://www.bonfire.com/store/pictrix-design/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Express VPN: Protect your online privacy TODAY by visiting https://ExpressVPN.com/majority. That's https://ExpressVPN.com/majority and you can get an extra three months FREE.  Sunset Lake CBD: Visit https://SunsetLakeCBD.com before September 9th and use code LABOR to save 30% on their CBD tinctures and participating bundles. See their website for terms and conditions. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Sarah and David answer listener emails, covering everything from judicial federalism, to the Supreme Court's upcoming tech term, to potential SCOTUS reforms. The Agenda: —Constitutionality of the special counsel —The Nixon precedent —Independent judgment of lower courts —Predictability and the rule of law —The Texas pornography case: children's rights or adult's rights? —Injunctions as extraordinary relief —Biden's proposed SCOTUS reforms —The grossness of ethics violations Show Notes: —Atul Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto —United States v. Nixon —Advisory Opinions episode on NetChoice v. Moody —Texas' H.B. 1181 —Ginsberg v. New York —The “Angry Cheerleader” case —Judge Bibas' Third Circuit opinion on assault weapons —Federalist Papers No. 83 —The Dispatch's Project 2025 Fact-Check —Presumed Innocent Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices