Podcasts about united states supreme court

Within the walls of the DOJ, there appears to be major unrest as NBC News has learned that Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is considering leaving his job after a heated confrontation with Attorney General Pam Bondi over his frustration with how the Justice Department has handled the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Rep. Jamie Raskin joins The Weekend to talk about that and how the increased politicization of the Justice Department will impact the nation.Plus, Mahmoud Khalil also joins the Weekend to discuss his decision to file a claim against the Trump Administration after alleging he was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite as the government sought to deport him because of his role in campus protests. Then Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin tell The Weekend how they've helped bring crime down in their respective cities to the lowest they've seen in decades.

In this episode, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Jan Crawford of CBS News, and Fred Smith Jr. of Stanford Law School join to explore polarization on the Court and the role of the media and the political branches in shaping public perceptions. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025) Jess Bravin and Mariah Timms, “Supreme Court Limits Rulings Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship,” The Wall Street Journal (June 27, 2025)  Jan Crawford, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for the Control of the United States Supreme Court (2007)  Fred O. Smith, Jr. and Peter O'Neill, “The Forgotten Face of ‘Our Federalism,'” The Yale Law Journal (forthcoming, 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. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Jeff is joined by constitutional law scholar Dr. Joshua Dunn to discuss the recently ended 2025 US Supreme Court term and some of the more interesting and potentially important decisions, as well as what seem like some friction between some of the justices.Get a free copy of Josh's primary documents reader about the Judiciary: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/product/the-judiciary/Get a free copy of Jeff's primary documents reader about the Supreme Court: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/product/the-supreme-court/Host: Jeff SikkengaExecutive Producer: Jeremy GyptonSubscribe: https://linktr.ee/theamericanidea

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

Critics are calling President Donald Trump's approach to immigration cruel after a new court filing by Kilmar Abrego Garcia's attorneys argued that during Garcia's time at the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador he suffered psychological and physical torture. Also the first detainees have arrived at the Florida detention center dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz." Florida State Senator Shevrin Jones and Immigration Attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg join The Weekend to discuss President Trump's immigration policy.

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

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

Religious liberty is a topic that is always worth the time to think about and talk about because the concept is a uniquely American contribution to the history of western civilization. Also, religious liberty is a uniquely Baptist contribution to the history of the American experiment. We know historically there is a give and take in the relationship between church and state and we are forever trying to assess in particular instances exactly how that relationship should play out. Right now, there are shifts being made by the United States Supreme Court and so, the proper understanding of government and organized religion is once again a topic worth examining. So, let's talk about religious liberty.Andrew T. Walker, “The scandal of compromising evangelical elites,” June 9, 2025.Joseph Backholm, “The myth of secular neutrality,” June 3, 2025.Colin J. Smothers, “Fuller Seminary's untenable ‘third way',” May 30, 2025.Thaddeus Williams, “Tax money for some religions,” May 27, 2025.

Welcome to Mysteries to Die For and this Toe Tag.I am TG Wolff and am here with Jack, my piano player and producer. This is normally a podcast where we combine storytelling with original music to put you at the heart of mystery. Today is a bonus episode we call a Toe Tag. It is the first chapter from a fresh release in the mystery, crime, and thriller genre.Today's featured release is SOMEONE HAD TO LIE by Jack LuellenReviewSOMEONE HAD TO LIE is a political mystery / thriller. DEA agent Joe Aguilar is dead. His life was taken as talked to his friend, defense attorney James Butler. His last words: “It was bigger than we thought and now we're in danger.” Now James and his wife, Erica Walsh, are on a perilous quest to find the truth behind Aguilar's death.Bottom line: SOMEONE HAD TO LIE is for you if you like political mysteries told against the backdrop of true crime. Someone Had To Lie was released from Torchflame Books and is promoted by Partners In Crime Tours and is available from AMAZON LINK and other book retailers.About Jack LuellenJack Luellen is a Denver, Colorado, attorney with more than 30 years of experience. In practice, he has tried cases to courts and juries, and written hundreds of briefs, motions, and memoranda to state and federal courts, including federal courts of appeal and the United States Supreme Court. In 1990, Jack first started working on cases related to the 1985 kidnapping and murder of DEA Agent Enrique Camarena and has investigated the case in the years since that time. Jack's investigations have taken him to foreign countries and included interviews with witnesses both notorious and infamous. Catch Up With Jack Luellen: LuellenWriting.comWondering what to read after you finish Someone Had To Lie? Partners in Crime Tours is your ultimate destination for all things mystery, crime, thriller, and cozy! Since 2011, they've been working to fill bookshelves with gripping and heart-pounding reads. Discover new mystery series and connection with other fans with Partners in Crime. Look up Partners in Crime Tours on the web or your favorite social media .And Authors, whether you're looking to promote your latest thriller, discover a new mystery series, or connect with fellow fans of the genre, PICT has you covered. Check out their promotion options that come with the personal attention of a dedicated coordinator.Join us next week for Mysteries to Die For, Season 8, Anything but Murder. It's episode 13 where race fixing is our murderless crime. Join us for The Butterfly Stroke Effect by Ken Harris.

This Day in Legal History: George Carlin's Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin's infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin's monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin's routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn't definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court's conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts' leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court's emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court'A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy's reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK Jr.'s Overhaul of HHS Blocked But Workers Won't Return NowA federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that Trump exceeded his legal authority. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that Trump's January 2025 proclamation, which barred migrants deemed part of an “invasion” from seeking asylum, violated both federal immigration law and the Constitution. The 128-page opinion emphasized that neither Congress nor the Constitution gave the president power to bypass existing asylum laws, even in the face of immigration challenges.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of advocacy groups and asylum seekers, arguing the ban contradicted U.S. and international legal standards. Moss's ruling temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy and allows 14 days for the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies broadly to a certified class of affected migrants, sidestepping recent Supreme Court limitations on national injunctions.Trump's policy built on but exceeded a similar effort by President Biden in 2024, which also faced judicial setbacks. The ruling marks another legal rebuke to Trump's aggressive immigration stance since returning to office. The administration maintains the judge overstepped and vows to appeal. Meanwhile, civil liberties groups hail the decision as a necessary check on executive overreach and a reaffirmation of asylum protections.US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his effort to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court's ruling that blocked their dismissal. The commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.—were appointed by President Biden and make up the majority of the five-member board. They were fired in May, prompting a lawsuit that argued the president lacks authority to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.A federal judge, Matthew Maddox, sided with the commissioners, stating Trump had overstepped his authority and finding no misconduct to justify their termination. The Justice Department claims Trump acted within his constitutional powers, asserting that the commissioners were obstructing his policy agenda. The administration is seeking to pause the reinstatement order while the case proceeds.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt the lower court ruling, emphasizing that Congress lawfully limited presidential removal powers in this context. Trump's team now wants the Supreme Court to override that decision, citing a recent high court ruling that allowed Trump to temporarily remove members of a federal labor board in a similar dispute.This case adds to a growing list of legal battles testing the limits of executive power since Trump returned to office. It also raises broader constitutional questions about the balance of power between the president and independent regulatory agencies.Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of consumer product safety commissioners | 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

Two years ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, threw out New York's Concealed Weapon Law – a law much like California's – as violative of the Second Amendment, and threw out former President Biden's student debt relief program.We asked our experts: what's next?Last year, the court granted presidential immunities once-thought unthinkable, held that the first amendment prohibits the Colorado Public-Accommodation Law from forcing a website designer to design a website for a same-sex wedding, stating it was against her religious beliefs, and found the Constitution's elections clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections..Again, we asked our experts: what's next?Needless to say, plenty to talk about the last few yearsThis year is also replete with activisim, politics, and a few surprises.YLR Host, Jeff Hayden, is joined by celebrated trial lawyer, Jim Brosnahan, to discuss this year's Supreme Court cases.Questions for Jeff and his guests? Please call, toll free, at (866) 798-8255.

Bruce and Gaydos ask Meghan McCain her thoughts on the latest SCOTUS decision.

The United States Supreme Court ruled Friday to uphold a Texas law requiring websites with “sexual material harmful to minors” to verify the ages of all visitors. The Free Speech Coalition (FSC), a trade association for the adult industry, had brought the lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging the state's age verification law. Also, the Danish government is working to change copyright law to give its citizens a right to their own body, facial features, and voice. The landmark law is designed to strengthen protections against the creation and dissemination of deepfakes, reports The Guardian. And Meta has been on a renewable buying spree in recent months. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We're back with another fantastic episode! This time we're talking about the government making promises that they never had any intention of keeping (ghasp), government trying to slip monitoring into every American's life "for their own good," and an apid attack on the authorities, plus whatever else we feel like ranting about!https://linktr.ee/anarchyamongfriendshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UHMuv3q4gAndrew's YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuYw7aFnaJBc8F6NCn-CKg/videos"InkedAnarchist15" for 15% off at https://www.thebeardstruggle.com/?rfsn=4064657.9a3f66&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=4064657.9a3f66https://www.reaperapparelco.com/?ref=52cju0Cb Or use "InkedAnarchist" at checkout and get 10% off.Dubby Energy Discount! - https://www.dubby.gg/discount/InkedAnarchist?ref=jwtimwuiJeremy at The Quartering's 'Coffee Brand Coffee': https://coffeebrandcoffee.com/?ref=eryobzq3Poppins Patches - https://www.facebook.com/poppinspatches or poppinspatches.com Anarchy Among Friends Telegram - https://t.me/AAFRTDAnarchy Among Friends Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/ValhallarchistSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0pqbeHBmWPN1sG0e6L28UvPodbean - https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/8yy6n-c5c4e/Anarchy-Among-Friends-PodcastApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anarchy-among-friends/id1459037636?ign-mpt=uo%3D4Stitcher - https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/anarchy-among-friendsGooglePodcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNGZmNzQwL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNzBreaker - https://www.breaker.audio/anarchy-among-friendsOvercast - https://overcast.fm/itunes1459037636/anarchy-among-friendsPocketCasts - https://pca.st/CDH3RadioPublic - https://radiopublic.com/anarchy-among-friends-WkzzjlBrandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio THIS PODCAST IS COVERED BY A BipCot NoGov LICENSE. USE AND RE-USE BY ANYONE EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS OR THEIR AGENTS IS OK. MORE INFO: https://bipcot.org/Warrantless Search Struck Down By SCOTUS - https://www.kake.com/home/warrantless-searches-of-rural-cowley-county-home-struck-down-by-federal-court/article_f0f6a272-f12b-40c2-afed-e16b40c21169.htmlThis is why you leave out cream for the fae -https://nypost.com/2025/06/25/us-news/driver-named-patches-magickbeans-high-in-near-fatal-crash-cops/Not the bees! -https://www.vice.com/en/article/beekeeper-unleashed-a-swarm-of-bees-on-police-during-traffic-stop/Ghasp! Shock! Dismay! No really, I'm so shocked!https://www.guns.com/news/2025/06/27/hearing-protection-act-short-act-stripped-from-big-beautiful-billCity Decides Takesies Backsies, Now She's Being Fined -https://reason.com/2025/06/28/she-got-a-permit-for-her-chickens-now-the-city-is-fining-her-80000/RFK Wants To Monitor You “For Your Own Good” -https://nypost.com/2025/06/25/us-news/rfk-jr-wants-every-american-to-use-wearable-health-data-collecting-technology/

The U.S. Supreme Court handed  President Donald Trump a major victory, curbing court injunctions that halted his plans to end automatic birthright citizenship.  Michele Goodwin, Mark Joseph Stern, and NJ Attorney General Matt Platkin join The Weekend to discuss the SCOTUS ruling fallout. David Corn also joins The Weekend to discuss Senate Republicans' effort to get President Trump's massive agenda passed and get the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," to his desk by a self-imposed July 4th deadline. 

The Wisconsin State Supreme Court came down with two major decisions and people aren't happy including Governor Evers and those who want new Congressional maps. Next, it seems like there are some basic HR errors taking place in the Federal Government regarding now former employees of NOAA. And has he does every Thursday, Civic Media's Jim Santelle joins the show to break down the law related news in the headlines, including a major decisions coming down from The United States Supreme Court and House Democrats are proposing a new bill to crack down on ICE agents being unmasked. Matenaer On Air is a part of the Civic Media radio network and airs Monday through Friday from 9 -11 am across the state. Subscribe to the show as a podcast so you don't miss an episode! To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to https://civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast line up. Follow the show on Facebook, X and YouTube to keep up with Jane and the show! Guest: Jim Santelle

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

How did a Canadian author's alphabet book end up at the United States Supreme Court? And what does this mean for 2SLGBTQ+ books for kids in Canada? We welcome Robin Stevenson to discuss.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Truth in Politics and Culture, President Trump's daring strike on Iranian nuclear production sites changing the security calculus of the Middle East and allows our enemies to get a glimpse of U.S. military power. The United States Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump Administration's ability to swiftly deport illegals to countries other than their country of origin in a 6-3 ruling.

The United States Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning some gender-affirming care for minors, and 26 other states have passed similar laws. Here in Philadelphia, Penn Medicine recently announced that they will no longer provide gender-affirming surgeries for people under 19. To get a better understanding of why some people want or need these procedures, Racquel Williams listens to personal experiences from Jasper Liem, Executive Director of The Attic Youth Center; mothasistah, an Attic staff member and parent of a transman; Naiymah Sanchez, a trans woman who works for the ACLU of PA; and Dr. Avra Laarakker, Gender Affirming/Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeon with Jefferson Pride Care at Jefferson Einstein Hospital. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On a special cross-over episode, Dina Doll of Unprecedented on the Legal AF Youtube channel focused on the United States Supreme Court joins Michael Popok on the Legal AF podcast, to take on: the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision against Transgender Americans; the Supreme Court's future involvement in Trump's attack on States Rights; Senior Status Federal Judges taking on Trump and holding his feet to the fire; the top remaining Supreme Court decisions yet to "drop" but we expect in the next 2 weeks, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. QUALIA: Head to https://qualialife.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 15% off your purchase! DELETE ME: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://deleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. UPLIFT: Elevate your workspace and energize your year with Uplift Desk. Go to https://upliftdesk.com/legalaf for a special offer exclusive to our audience. MOINK: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get FREE WINGS for LIFE! Check Out The Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com/ Subscribe to the NEW Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen 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 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling stating states can ban trans surgeries for minors. // Bruce Harrell is trying to gloss over the violence that took place in Seattle over the weekend. The ladies of The View say that deportations will make prices go up. A congressional Democrat says we should give amnesty to every illegal immigrant. // Sunny Hostin tried to debate foreign policy and it was just as dumb as you would expect.

Guest: Mark Anthony, JD the Psychic Explorer® (aka The Psychic Lawyer)Full Notes: Mark Anthony, JD the Psychic Explorer® - Beyond Reasonable Doubt of an Afterlife Episode 140Mark Anthony, JD Psychic Explorer (also known as The Psychic Lawyer) is a fourth-generation psychic medium who communicates with spirits. He is an Oxford-educated attorney licensed to practice law in Florida, Washington D.C., and before the United States Supreme Court. Mark was named a notable graduate by the Arthur Findlay College of Psychic Science; he is a Spiritual Awakenings International Circle of Honor Honoree and he received the OMMIE (OH-ME) Award for Best Psychic Medium.Mark appears nationwide on TV and Radio including CBS TV's “The Doctors Gaia TV, and Discovery Channel. He co-hosts the livestream show “The Psychic and the Doc” on Transformation Network. READ FULL BIOJoin our Science + Spirituality CircleHost or Attend a Science + Spirituality SalonBuy the books: ⁠⁠WTF Just Happened?! Series*SPONSORS*Two Moons Health https://twomoonshealth.co/products/seed-cycle-capsules-bundle Code is: WTFSPRING50 for $50 offGo to WTF Just Happened?! Episode Page for full details Follow Mark Anthony: Website | Instagram | IMDB | YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy me a coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠ |⁠⁠ ⁠⁠WTF Just Happened Books⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Science + Spirituality Salons⁠⁠ |⁠⁠⁠⁠Newsletter ⁠⁠⁠ |Patreon 

Top headlines for Tuesday, June 17, 2025In this episode, we explore the implications of the United States Supreme Court's decision to hear a case challenging a subpoena for donor information from a network of pro-life pregnancy centers. Next, we discuss a new poll revealing a downward trend in support for trans-identified athletes competing on teams that align with their gender identity. Plus, we turn our attention to the Middle East, where eight Israelis tragically lost their lives in overnight Iranian missile strikes.00:12 Supreme Court takes on subpoena for pro-life network donor info01:06 Support for males in girls' sports continues decline: poll02:18 Record gap between genders on if abortion is morally acceptable03:13 Up to 200 Christians masacred by extremists in Nigeria: report04:13 Death toll climbs to 24 after latest Iranian missile assaults05:03 Minnesota shooting suspect is former pastor, Tim Walz appointee05:51 Riley Gaines announces pregnancy, reflects on Simone Biles Subscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsSupreme Court takes on subpoena for pro-life network donor info | PoliticsSupport for males in girls' sports continues decline: poll | SportsRecord gap between genders on if abortion is morally acceptable | U.S.Up to 200 Christians masacred by extremists in Nigeria: report | WorldDeath toll climbs to 24 after latest Iranian missile assaults | WorldMinnesota shooting suspect is former pastor, Tim Walz appointee | U.S.Riley Gaines announces pregnancy, reflects on Simone Biles | Sports

Jim Bopp is one of most successful and respected attorneys in the United States. Not only has he argued (and won) several cases before the United States Supreme Court, but he was also recently named by Governor Mike Braun as a trustee of Indiana University. On this week's leaders and “Leaders and Legends” podcast, Bopp joins us to discuss his career, his roots in Terre Haute, and how much he is looking forward to serving his alma mater.About Veteran Strategies‘Leaders and Legends' is brought to you by Veteran Strategies—your local veteran business enterprise specializing in media relations, crisis communications, public outreach, and digital photography.Learn more at www.veteranstrategies.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

https://linktr.ee/anarchyamongfriendshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UHMuv3q4gAndrew's YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuYw7aFnaJBc8F6NCn-CKg/videos"InkedAnarchist15" for 15% off at https://www.thebeardstruggle.com/?rfsn=4064657.9a3f66&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=4064657.9a3f66https://www.reaperapparelco.com/?ref=52cju0Cb Or use "InkedAnarchist" at checkout and get 10% off.Dubby Energy Discount! - https://www.dubby.gg/discount/InkedAnarchist?ref=jwtimwuiJeremy at The Quartering's 'Coffee Brand Coffee': https://coffeebrandcoffee.com/?ref=eryobzq3Poppins Patches - https://www.facebook.com/poppinspatches or poppinspatches.com Anarchy Among Friends Telegram - https://t.me/AAFRTDhttps://odysee.com/@AnarchyAmongFriendsRoundtableDiscussion:5Anarchy Among Friends Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/ValhallarchistSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0pqbeHBmWPN1sG0e6L28UvPodbean - https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/8yy6n-c5c4e/Anarchy-Among-Friends-PodcastApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anarchy-among-friends/id1459037636?ign-mpt=uo%3D4Stitcher - https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/anarchy-among-friendsGooglePodcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNGZmNzQwL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNzBreaker - https://www.breaker.audio/anarchy-among-friendsOvercast - https://overcast.fm/itunes1459037636/anarchy-among-friendsPocketCasts - https://pca.st/CDH3RadioPublic - https://radiopublic.com/anarchy-among-friends-WkzzjlBrandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio THIS PODCAST IS COVERED BY A BipCot NoGov LICENSE. USE AND RE-USE BY ANYONE EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS OR THEIR AGENTS IS OK. MORE INFO: https://bipcot.org/Ram Does 180 on Woke Electric Move -https://nypost.com/2025/06/13/business/ram-ceo-tim-kuniskis-apologizes-for-ditching-gas-powered-engine/Cops Abandoned Pregnant Woman To Die, Finally Arrested -https://www.motorbiscuit.com/florida-police-officers-arrested-abandoning-accident/Longest Serving Elected Official Is Corrupt… Water Is Also Wet -https://www.yahoo.com/news/longest-serving-legislative-leader-us-035307095.htmlLockheed Martin Stocks Fall 7%... Coincidentally Israel Immediately Starts A War And Stocks Go Up -https://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-martin-shares-fall-pentagon-f35-requests-air-force-2025-6https://www.barrons.com/articles/rtx-stock-lockheed-martin-defense-israel-iran-f7cb1b1eCity Wants To Take Entire Family Farm -https://www.agweb.com/news/business/farmland/city-gov-seize-175-year-old-farm-eminent-domain-replace-affordable-housingProgressive Hypocrites -https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-08/waymo-vehicles-set-on-fire-protesters-police-clashRemember When InkedAnarchist Predicted Martial Law Moves? -https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-cities-brace-more-protests-parts-los-angeles-placed-under-curfew-2025-06-11/What You Need To Live Comfortably -https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/07/salary-a-single-adult-needs-to-live-comfortably-in-all-50-us-states.htmlThis Is A Wild Ride - https://nypost.com/2025/06/10/us-news/raccoon-released-into-a-packed-kentucky-restaurant-in-misguided-plot-for-revenge/Man Almost Jailed For Fighting For Property Rights May Get Day In Court -https://reason.com/2025/06/10/a-prosecutor-allegedly-tried-to-jail-him-for-fighting-civil-forfeiture-he-may-finally-get-his-day-in-court/Boy Gets20k and an Apology -https://nypost.com/2025/06/05/us-news/north-carolina-student-who-was-suspended-for-saying-illegal-alien-in-class-to-receive-20k-apology-from-school-in-settlement/

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man, respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that, because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.” Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. On June 5th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, holding it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold a tax exemption on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because the organization did not proselytize or limit services to only fellow Catholics. Join us for an expert analysis of the decision and its implications.Featuring:Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

In this episode I go over the Los Angeles Riots. i talk about the different times that immigrations customs and enforcement are ice. Went in and deported thousands. Of millions in? Previous. Administrations? How the media depending on which one you're looking at twist it to their narrative also? Yes. Give a update to we shall be free tour with Tanawah Downing, who has a yesterday? June 9th 2025? What is 2 address the United States Supreme Court? How states were violating the 14th amendment and this. Yes? From a case from 1884.

Today, Mel sits down with one of the most extraordinary guests to ever appear on this podcast. If you've ever asked yourself: What's my purpose? How can I make a difference? How do I stay hopeful when the world feels broken? This is the conversation that will change the way you think about your own power to lead a life that matters. Bryan Stevenson is Mel's personal hero, and what he shares in this episode will change how you see yourself. He is a world-renowned civil rights lawyer and author of Just Mercy, one of the most powerful books of our time which was turned into a movie in which Michael B. Jordan played Bryan. Bryan is the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and has argued and won cases before the United States Supreme Court. He has saved over 140 people from death row, many of them who were wrongly convicted, and his work has fundamentally transformed the conversation about justice, mercy, and human dignity. His life's mission is proving one powerful truth: You are not defined by your worst mistake. And neither is anyone else. This episode will shake you, open you, and move you to action. You'll learn: – 3 life-changing lessons from the lawyer who's saved 140 lives – The mindset that will help you stay hopeful, even in the darkest moments – Why compassion is courage — and how to practice it daily – How to live a life that reflects what you truly believe – Why the smallest actions often create the biggest change If you're feeling overwhelmed, discouraged, or unsure how to make a real difference, this episode is for you. For more resources, click here for the podcast episode page. If you liked this episode, you'll love listening to this one next: How to Find Your Purpose & Design the Life You WantConnect with Mel:  Get Mel's #1 bestselling book, The Let Them TheoryWatch the episodes on YouTubeFollow Mel on Instagram The Mel Robbins Podcast InstagramMel's TikTok Sign up for Mel's personal letter Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes ad-freeDisclaimer

Trump has imposed a travel ban on 12 countries that the administration deems dangerous. Ninth Circuit Court effectively outlawed women's only spas owned by religious people. The United States Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding the legality of mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day. // LongForm: GUEST: King County Assessor and candidate for King County Executive John Wilson responds to the allegations against him and the calls for him to resign. // Quick Hit: The Seattle City Council is considering establishing digital kiosks downtown.  

Fifty-one years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that would forever change education for English learners in this country. In the 1974 case Lau v. Nichols, the Court decided that students who do not yet speak fluent English have a right to fully understand what is being taught in their classrooms, and that schools must take steps to make sure students can understand, whether through additional instruction in English as a second language or bilingual education. On this episode of Education Beat, we bring you the story of how this case began and how it changed education, from the perspective of a teacher. Guest: Lucinda Lee Katz, Retired teacher and administrator Read more from EdSource: Q&A: How the 50-year-old case that transformed English learner education began Education Beat is a weekly podcast, hosted by EdSource's Zaidee Stavely and produced by Coby McDonald. Subscribe: Apple, Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube

This Day in Legal History: Henderson v. United States DecidedOn June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950), a significant civil rights ruling concerning racial segregation in interstate transportation. Elmer W. Henderson, an African American passenger, had been denied equal dining services on a train operated by the Southern Railway Company under a policy that enforced segregation. Although a dining car had a partition supposedly to accommodate Black passengers, in practice Henderson was often unable to access equivalent service due to timing and seat availability.The case reached the Supreme Court after the Interstate Commerce Commission failed to provide meaningful relief. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fred Vinson, the Court held that the railway's practices violated the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly its provision requiring carriers to provide equal treatment and avoid undue prejudice. Importantly, the Court based its reasoning not on constitutional grounds (such as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment), but on statutory interpretation, finding that the carrier's conduct constituted an unjust and unreasonable discrimination.This ruling marked an early and important step toward dismantling legally sanctioned segregation in public accommodations, prefiguring later landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although not framed as a constitutional equal protection case, Henderson nonetheless contributed to the legal groundwork of the civil rights movement and challenged the legitimacy of the “separate but equal” doctrine in practical terms.SAP, Europe's largest software company, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision that revived an antitrust lawsuit brought by its competitor, Teradata. The case centers on allegations that SAP unlawfully tied its business-planning applications to a required purchase of its own database software, which competes with Teradata's products. SAP argues that such software integration benefits consumers and constitutes healthy competition, not anti-competitive conduct.The lawsuit was initially filed by California-based Teradata in 2018 after the companies ended a joint venture. SAP had prevailed in the lower court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, stating a jury should decide the case. SAP's petition criticizes the appellate court's reliance on a version of the “per se rule,” under which the conduct is presumed illegal without a detailed analysis. Instead, SAP advocates for applying the more nuanced “rule of reason” standard, which considers both competitive harms and justifications.SAP also claims the ruling conflicts with how a different federal appeals court treated a similar antitrust issue in the historic Microsoft case. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.This case hinges on the concept of “tying,” where a company conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another, potentially stifling competition. It's significant because whether courts apply a strict “per se” rule or the more flexible “rule of reason” can dramatically affect the outcome in such antitrust disputes.Tech giant SAP asks US Supreme Court to reconsider rival's antitrust win | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Democratic Party committees accusing President Donald Trump of trying to undermine the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to demonstrate any “concrete and imminent injury” necessary to sustain a legal challenge.The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, contested an executive order issued by Trump that aimed to increase White House control over independent federal agencies, including the FEC. The order stated that the legal views of the president and the attorney general would be “controlling” for federal employees and prohibited them from expressing opposing positions. Democrats claimed this language threatened the FEC's independence and could deter campaign planning.Judge Ali, however, noted that administration lawyers had assured the court that the executive order would not be used to interfere with the FEC's decision-making. He also found the plaintiffs' concerns too speculative, emphasizing that the Supreme Court requires a demonstrated change in the relationship with the agency in question, which the plaintiffs had not shown.The judge's decision hinged on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, a fundamental requirement in federal court. To proceed with a lawsuit, plaintiffs must show a specific, actual, or imminent injury caused by the defendant. In this case, speculative harm and vague concerns about agency behavior were insufficient. This principle helps prevent courts from weighing in on political disputes where no direct harm can be proven.Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independenceThe Trump administration is pursuing a new $25 million contract to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct DNA testing on families facing deportation. The goal, according to ICE, is to verify family relationships—but critics warn the program could lead to unnecessary family separations, especially in cases involving non-biological caregivers like godparents. Civil rights advocates also raise concerns that the DNA data could be misused for unrelated criminal investigations and stored indefinitely.The contract was initially awarded in May to SNA International, a firm specializing in forensic identification. However, Bode Cellmark Forensics filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing the contract wasn't competitively bid. ICE subsequently issued a stop-work order on the contract pending resolution of the protest, with a decision expected by September 2.This is not ICE's first attempt at rapid DNA testing. A similar program began in 2019 during Trump's first term to detect alleged “fraudulent” parent-child relationships, often targeting migrant families. Though handed over to Customs and Border Protection in 2021, the Biden administration ended it in 2023. Reports since then have highlighted issues with consent, with some migrants mistaking DNA swabs for COVID-19 tests or feeling coerced into participation under threat of legal consequences.Privacy advocates argue that such widespread collection of genetic data lacks transparency and oversight. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology recently sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide records on how DNA samples from migrants are collected and stored.The revived DNA testing raises key legal questions about informed consent and the scope of data use by federal agencies. When individuals are unaware of what they're consenting to—or coerced into it—the practice may violate federal standards for ethical data collection, especially under the Privacy Act and due process protections.ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract 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

June is typically the time of year when the United States Supreme Court hands down their opinions on the cases they decided to take up this session. One of the cases up for a decision is a disability discrimination case involving a Minnesota family that sued Osseo Area Schools. The family has a daughter with severe epilepsy and cognitive disabilities. They requested that Osseo Area Schools allow their daughter to have a later school schedule because she tends to suffer from seizures in the morning. The school did not make that accommodation and the family is working to prove that public school officials violated the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. The case could test the reach of federal laws that promise special help for children with disabilities in public schools. Jill Hasday, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, joined Minnesota Now to explain the case.

Nevin (Adams) & Fred (Reish) brought their prolific,pugnacious, and provocative perspectives in a live podcast format to the record-breaking NAPA 401(k) Summit. In part 1 the precocious podcasting pair talked about anumber of lessons to be learned from recent litigation, including:     - Who bears the burden of proof in ERISA litigation—according to the United States Supreme Court (bad policy, but “good” law)?- A rare jury trial—and a BIG settlement.  Why they're rare (but may become more common).  Oh, and it involved a multiple employer plan (MEP).   - Fred clarifies his prediction on PEPs (but he's still a fan).In part 2, the pugnacious pair presciently pontificated on:      - What to make/do about the recent surge in litigation regarding plan forfeitures;    - What to consider in light of recent developmentsregarding private investments in defined contribution plans;    - The implications of/for proxy voting by definedcontribution plans in the aftermath of recent litigation regarding American Airlines.Episode ResourcesForfeituresForfeiture Litigation Update Impact of Forfeiture Lawsuits on Plan SponsorsAlternative/Private Investment TrendsThe Growing Case for Alternatives in Retirement Saving: NAPA 401(k) SummitHow Advisors REALLY Feel About Private Markets Investments in 401(k)sProxy Voting How Fiduciaries Can/Should Fulfill Proxy Voting Responsibilities: HauserTrump-led DOL to Address ESG Rule Through Rulemaking Process

We're back again! Tonight we got a long show with a lot of twists, spins, turns, leg lifts...okay well maybe that's just one article. But we got a lot to discuss, from cops in Idaho killing someone because a neighbor reported them drunk, to California waste, to Wisconsin Dem idiocy and the lowering of America's credit score, plus whatever other shennanigans we get up to!https://linktr.ee/anarchyamongfriendsAndrew's YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuYw7aFnaJBc8F6NCn-CKg/videos"InkedAnarchist15" for 15% off at https://www.thebeardstruggle.com/?rfsn=4064657.9a3f66&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=4064657.9a3f66https://www.reaperapparelco.com/?ref=52cju0Cb Or use "InkedAnarchist" at checkout and get 10% off.RK Sppokware https://rkspookware.com?aff=11Jeremy at The Quartering's 'Coffee Brand Coffee': https://coffeebrandcoffee.com/?ref=eryobzq3Poppins Patches - https://www.facebook.com/poppinspatches or poppinspatches.com Anarchy Among Friends Telegram - https://t.me/AAFRTDAnarchy Among Friends FB - https://www.facebook.com/AAFRTDAnarchy Among Friends Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/ValhallarchistSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0pqbeHBmWPN1sG0e6L28UvPodbean - https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/8yy6n-c5c4e/Anarchy-Among-Friends-PodcastApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anarchy-among-friends/id1459037636?ign-mpt=uo%3D4Stitcher - https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/anarchy-among-friendsGooglePodcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNGZmNzQwL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNzBreaker - https://www.breaker.audio/anarchy-among-friendsOvercast - https://overcast.fm/itunes1459037636/anarchy-among-friendsPocketCasts - https://pca.st/CDH3RadioPublic - https://radiopublic.com/anarchy-among-friends-WkzzjlBrandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio THIS PODCAST IS COVERED BY A BipCot NoGov LICENSE. USE AND RE-USE BY ANYONE EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS OR THEIR AGENTS IS OK. MORE INFO: https://bipcot.org/Supafreak…enomics - https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/sex-workers-already-predicted-theres-031602161.html9 Seconds To Kill Disabled Man - https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/victor-perez-pocatello-idaho-shooting-go-fund-meAbusive Cops -https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2025/04/10/wisconsin-doj-reverses-decision-to-release-cop-names-after-pushback-from-police/83011946007/Mich. Threatens People - https://dailycaller.com/2025/04/10/blue-state-town-threatens-legal-action-against-residents-making-statements-that-harm-government/Lower Courts - https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5241423-house-passes-bill-district-court-injunctions/Guilty - https://wisconsinwatch.org/2025/04/wisconsin-bail-jumping-court-criminal-charge-dane-county/Rail - https://www.newsbreak.com/san-diego-post-314653203/3986485783750-california-s-high-speed-rail-still-off-track-100-billion-project-faces-new-uncertaintyDems - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5274890-democrats-reintroduce-assault-weapons-ban/Too Much Work - https://reason.com/2025/05/09/government-argues-its-too-much-to-ask-the-fbi-to-check-the-address-before-blowing-up-a-home/Feds - https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-insist-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-machine-guns/Arcadia PD - https://www.weau.com/2025/05/05/entire-arcadia-police-department-leaves-their-positions/Florida Man - https://nypost.com/2025/05/01/us-news/kentucky-son-who-won-167-3m-powerball-jackpot-with-mom-charged-with-kicking-florida-cop-in-the-face-days-later-affidavit/America's Credit - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-debt-no-longer-earns-214721996.html

Join Trish and Rob for a conversation with... Mark Anthony is known as The Psychic Lawyer. He's a fourth-generation psychic medium who communicates with spirits. He is an Oxford-educated attorney licensed to practice law in Florida, Washington D.C., and before the United States Supreme Court. Mark was named a notable graduate by the Arthur Findlay College of Psychic Science; he was designated Visionary of the Year by Best Holistic Life; Honoree of Spiritual Awakenings International Circle of Honor Honoree and he received the OMMIE (OH-ME) Award for Best Psychic Medium. He co-hosts the livestream show “The Psychic and the Doc” on Transformation Network voted Best Radio Show of the Year 2024 & 2025 by Best Holistic Life. Mark Anthony is the author of three bestselling books. His latest, The Afterlife Frequency has won multiple awards, ranked as one of the top books about faith and was up for a Pulitzer. His other bestselling books are Never Letting Go and Evidence of Eternity. He is also a VIP Executive Contributor for “Best Holistic Life Magazine.” Mark Anthony: https://www.afterlifefrequency.com/ The Mystical Underground Blog: https://themysticalunderground.com YouTube: / @themysticalunderground

Three teenage boys in North Seattle allegedly stole a shotgun… and condoms. The port of Seattle says they’ve seen less traffic due to tariffs. Washington’s birthright citizenship case is going before the United States Supreme Court. Left wingers are livid that Trump is admitting white South African refugees. // LongForm: GUEST: State Rep. Travis Couture on Democrats plan to take money from Washington’s most vulnerable and give it to illegal immigrants.  // Quick Hit: Washington’s public library systems is dealing with looming cuts due to the state’s budget deficit. Stop/start tech on cars could go away soon. Fingers crossed.

Nevin (Adams) & Fred (Reish) brought their prolific,pugnacious, and provocative perspectives in a live podcast format to the record-breaking NAPA 401(k) Summit.That's right, at the mid-point of the 2025 NAPA 401(k)Summit, the precocious podcasting pair talked about a number of lessons to be learned from recent litigation, including:Who bears the burden of proof in ERISA litigation—according to the United States Supreme Court (bad policy, but "good" law)? A rare jury trial—and a BIG settlement.  Why they're rare (but may become more common).  Oh, and it involved a multiple employer plan (MEP).Fred clarifies his prediction on PEPs (but he's still a fan).And that's just Part 1! Episode Resources Burden of Proof RulingSupremes Back Cornell Plaintiffs in ERISA Burden of ProofStandardOral arguments in the case:  Supremes Hear ERISA Burden of Proof CaseThe Cornell University Litigation “Saga”  https://www.napa-net.org/header/search/?q=cornellERISA Jury TrialsJury Slaps Pentegra with $39 Million in Damages in MEPExcessive Fee SuitFidelity Wins Motion on Jury DemandPEP PerspectivesNevin & Fred: Could a Predominant PEPs Prediction ProvePositive?PEPs Will Match Single Employer Plan Adoption in 5 to 10 Years: Fred Reish

Sarah in Ohio reaches out to ask about her nephew, who was recently convicted of attempted murder and felonious assault in what they believe was a clear-cut case of self-defense. After losing their appeal and feeling like the state courts haven't given them a fair shake, Sarah wants to know: can they skip straight to the United States Supreme Court?I break down exactly how the appellate process works and why, no matter how urgent or important your case feels, you can't just jump right to the Supreme Court. I walk you through the legal ladder—from trial, to the Ohio Court of Appeals, to the Ohio Supreme Court, and only then, potentially, to the highest court in the land. Along the way, I explain what kinds of issues the Supreme Court is actually looking for, and why they usually don't take up individual error corrections. If you've ever wondered how—and if—a case can make it all the way to Washington, D.C., this episode will clear things up. So tune in for an inside look at the real process of seeking justice through an appeal!Here are 3 key takeawaysNo Skipping Steps: You can't bypass intermediate appeals and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Every case must follow a specific appellate ladder, starting with a direct appeal, then applying for review by your state's highest court.Supreme Courts Are Selective: Both the Ohio Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court choose which cases they hear, typically focusing on issues with broad constitutional impact—not just error correction in a single case.Timing and Process Matter: If your case is denied review at the state's highest level, you have a limited window (typically 90 days) to petition the U.S. Supreme Court—and even then, getting heard is rare.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Ben Meiselas & Michael Popok head the top rated Legal AF podcast and tonight address Trump's declaration of war against the 5th Amendment Due Process Rights and Writs of Habeas Corpus rights of all, and just how close are we to Trump declaring martial law; the outsized role of Trump's senior advisor Stephen Miller who is not a lawyer, but plays one in the White House, federal courts latest moves to protect democracy in a series of losses for Trump this week, the United States Supreme Court acting out against Trump, and an overview of the upcoming oral argument, the last of the term, on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support our Sponsors: Delete Me: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://deleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. Vessi: Take the first step toward adventure with Vessi. Visit https://vessi.com/LEGALAF to keep your travels comfortable and dry. Explore confidently and enjoy 15% off your first pair at checkout! Rocket Money: Let Rocket Money reach your financial goals faster by going to https://rocketmoney.com/legalaf Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Subscribe to the NEW Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen 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 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today’s episode is David’s report on a “autopsy” performed by a few of the remaining sons of Issachar in America on the “Death of Evangelicalism.” Its death was pronounced by a Final Judgment, aptly named, issued by the United States Supreme Court in 2015. If you want to appreciate why evangelicalism seems so fruitlessness in culture and law, you will want to listen to the report. Thankfully, he notes, the dead are raised to life again according to the Gospel.

Today’s episode is David’s report on a “autopsy” performed by a few of the remaining sons of Issachar in America on the “Death of Evangelicalism.” Its death was pronounced by a Final Judgment, aptly named, issued by the United States Supreme Court in 2015. If you want to appreciate why evangelicalism seems so fruitlessness in culture and law, you will want to listen to the report. Thankfully, he notes, the dead are raised to life again according to the Gospel.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trump is continuing to press his losing hand with the United States Supreme Court, and has filed his 12th phony “emergency” application to convince the Supreme Court that it when it called all Venezuelans “scum” and “dirtbags” it was only kidding before deciding to end their protective status and deport them. Michael Popok explains why filing this particular emergency application that Justice Kagan considers first may backfire for the Trump Administration and its Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem. Get 35% OFF on all orders above $139 @MixTiles with code: LEGALAF at https://mixtiles.com/LEGALAF #mixtilespod 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen 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 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Certain moments inspire my "America feeling"—a profound connection to the ideals of the United States. For instance, the formal words of the opening ritual for a session of the United States Supreme Court reminds me of the value of justice. Get in touch: podcast@gretchenrubin.com Visit Gretchen's website to learn more about Gretchen's best-selling books, products from The Happiness Project Collection, and the Happier app. Find the transcript for this episode on the episode details page in the Apple Podcasts app. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As the feds struggle to even obtain a grand jury indictment against hero State Court Judge Hannah Dugan for not trusting the Trump Administration and demanding a proper judge-issued arrest warrant before allowing the feds to arrest an undocumented defendant in her court room, and other judges threatening to close their courtrooms in solidarity, the Trump Administration won't rule out arresting other judges all he way up to the United States Supreme Court! Michael Popok takes a hard look at the depravity that infects the Trump Administration and its DOJ, and why voters say in poll after poll that they hate the Trump Administration and everything it has done in the first 100 days. Go to https://shopremi.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout for 50% off. 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen 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 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hell hath no fury, like a Federal Judge just affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, and the Trump Administration and its hapless DOJ representative, Drew Ensign, found that out a new hearing about what steps the Trump Administration is taking to get Armando Abrego Garcia, illegally deported and removed, back from El Salvador. Michael Popok reports on the hearing today, the Judge's fury, the DOJ's gibberish and willful misinterpretation of the Supreme's order, and why it all matters to our rule of law. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen 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 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a rare display of unanimity, ALL 9 Supreme Court Justices told the Trump administration that it MUST provide due process - notice and opportunity to be heard - to every single person it seeks to deport.As Justice Sotomayor said in her dissenting opinion: "To the extent, the Government (the Trump administration) removes (deports) even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court."If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” the United States Supreme Court finally stepped up and defended President Donald Trump from the extremist federal judges blocking his orders. SCOTUS ruled that Trump can continue with his deportations of MS-13 gang members. Next, Democrats claim that Republicans are racist, yet Dems are the ones who are always talking about race. A new report is also damaging to Democrats because it shows that a majority of Democrats support using violence against Donald Trump and his supporters. Some even support the use of murder. Finally, the flu vaccine might just have been proven to be worse for you than just remaining unvaccinated.   Today's Guest: Sara is joined by the host of "The Bottom Line," Jaco Booyens.   Today's Sponsors:   Patriot Mobile: Right now, go to http://www.PatriotMobile.com/SARA or call 972-PATRIOT and get a FREE MONTH of service with promo code SARA. Switch to Patriot Mobile today and defend freedom with every call and text you make.   Lean (Brickhouse Nutrition): If you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace, Lean was created for you. Let me get you started with 20% off when you enter sara20 at http://www.takelean.com.   "The King of Kings": I encourage you to see "The King of Kings," in theaters on Friday, April 11. Get your tickets today at http://www.Angel.com/SARA. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's encouraging episode, Pastor Jack and attorney Kelly Shackelford discuss exciting victories in America's court system and many successful outcomes within the Supreme Court. Kelly Shackelford is President and Chief Executive Officer of First Liberty Institute. Mr. Shackelford is a constitutional scholar who has argued before the United States Supreme Court, testified before the U.S. House and Senate, and has won numerous landmark First Amendment and religious liberty cases, including the landmark religious liberty victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, American Legion v. America Humanist Association.  CONNECT WITH FIRST LIBERTY:https://firstliberty.org/ (00:00) Religious Liberty Victories and Hope(11:24) Defending Religious Liberty and the Constitution(20:57) Empowering Hope for Religious LibertyCONNECT WITH PASTOR JACK:Website: https://jackhibbs.com/ Instagram: http://bit.ly/2FCyXpO Facebook: https://bit.ly/2WZBWV0 YouTube:  https://bit.ly/437xMHn DAZE OF DECEPTION BOOK:https://jackhibbs.com/daze-of-deception/CALLED TO TAKE A BOLD STAND PRE-ORDER:https://tinyurl.com/33d5dpaj Did you know we have a Real Life Network? Sign up for free for more exclusive content:https://bit.ly/3CIP3M99