Podcasts about united states supreme court

Women Series. Episode #3 of 4. In 1954, the United States Supreme Court released one of its most important and revolutionary rulings: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, usually better known as Brown v. Board. The ruling overturned the infamous ruling in Plessy v Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that established the ‘separate but equal' precedent that made Jim Crow discrimination legal. The Brown ruling required that the federal government integrate public schools, bringing white and Black children together to receive equal education. While this story is often told as one part of a progressive and inspiring story about the Civil Rights Movement, a movement for rights that we now sort of all agree was good. But in reality, Brown v Board and the wider movement were met with extreme resistance from white supremacists. While white male politicians like George Wallace got the most attention, they were riding a wave of racism and resistance created and kept alive by white women. Today, for this episode of our latest women's history series, we're talking about the white women who fought back against the Civil Rights Movement. Find transcripts and show notes at www.digpodcast.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump is now moving for an immediate rehearing at the United States Supreme Court over the birthright citizenship case after reports surfaced of billboards near the southern border advertising birthright citizenship-related maternity packages with “deliveries starting at $4,000.” Trump blasted the situation, declaring that American citizenship is not for sale and arguing that the Supreme Court must reconsider its ruling.The controversy comes after the Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Now Trump is pointing to the billboard scandal and birth tourism concerns as evidence that the ruling has opened the door to what he calls a massive citizenship scam.In this video, we break down Trump's full statement, what the billboard controversy means, what a Supreme Court rehearing would involve, why this issue is exploding politically, and why the fight over birthright citizenship may be far from over.Is American citizenship being exploited? Should SCOTUS rehear the case? And did nobody see this coming?Drop your thoughts in the comments.For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (656) 218-0931 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/nez✅ Reach out to me: https://bio.site/professornez✅ ORIGINAL MADE IN U.S.A 250TH AMERICA DESIGNS: https://professornez.myspreadshop.com/✅ Check out our Official Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@professornezclips▶ Support the Channel and Buy us a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/professornezEducational Commentary & Original AnalysisThis channel presents educational, lecture-style analysis created by a university professor and educator. Content focuses on contextual examination, historical background, legal frameworks, and evidence-based analysis of widely reported events, public records, and institutional processes.The approach emphasizes academic methodology, media literacy, and source-driven interpretation rather than advocacy, persuasion, or real-time news reporting. Viewers are encouraged to consult primary sources and form independent conclusions.All content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or professional advice. Views expressed are solely those of the creator.This channel may include references or links to third-party websites or products for informational purposes. Some links may be affiliate links, which may generate a commission at no additional cost to the viewer.In this video expert Professor Nez analyzes and educates on what happened and why with fact based, data based, verified and researched expertise reporting.All original content is protected by copyright. Fair use applies where permitted by law.Category: News Analysis & Educational CommentaryMethodology: This report utilizes primary source verification and comparative analysis

It is not that common to have an agricultural law case at the United States Supreme Court, but this term, Monsanto v. Durnell was argued, and in June, the Justices issued their decision on the important questions of whether FIFRA's labeling requirements preempts state law failure-to-warn claims.  Jennie Zwagerman joined me to talk through the case, the Opinion, and what this means going forward.   Contact Info for Jennie  Phone: 515-271-4119 Email: jennifer.zwagerman@drake.edu https://www.drake.edu/law/fac-staff/profile/jennifer-zwagerman   Links to Topics Mentioned on the Show Ag Law in the Field Podcast Episode: So You Want to Go to Law School  Drake Law School Ag Law Program  AALA Texas Agriculture Law Blog: US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA   Restaurant Recommendation:  WASABI   Where Jennie keeps up with ag law news:   Texas Agriculture Law Blog Ag Law in the Field Podcast AgriPulse Politico Ag National Agricultural Law Center Congressional Research Service Reports

in 1991, Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the United States Supreme Court and it was the biggest downgrade in American History. Marshall is maybe the greatest civil rights lawyer of all time and Clarence has spent the last 35 years undoing it all. Patreon: https://patreon.com/redactedhistory?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLink Listen to the pod: https://pod.link/1609909822?view=apps... Subscribe to the YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@redactedhistory Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're still unpacking the slew of consequential Supreme Court decisions that came down at the end of the term last week. Among them was a 6-3 ruling on digital data privacy.In Chatrie v. United States, the Court found digital data does fall under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, law professor at George Washington University and author of the recent book “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance," explains more.More on this“Chatrie v. United States” opinion from the Supreme Court of The United States“Supreme Court limits use of 'geofence warrants' amid cellphone data privacy concerns” from ABC NewsBluesky thread post on the 6-3 ruling from Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

We're still unpacking the slew of consequential Supreme Court decisions that came down at the end of the term last week. Among them was a 6-3 ruling on digital data privacy.In Chatrie v. United States, the Court found digital data does fall under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, law professor at George Washington University and author of the recent book “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance," explains more.More on this“Chatrie v. United States” opinion from the Supreme Court of The United States“Supreme Court limits use of 'geofence warrants' amid cellphone data privacy concerns” from ABC NewsBluesky thread post on the 6-3 ruling from Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Episode 297- SCOTUS Win on Assault Firearms Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 15 Gun Lawyer — Episode 297 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court, assault weapons, Second Amendment, gun rights, New Jersey, NRA, firearm laws, Heller decision, McDonald, Bruen, reparations, gun control, concealed carry, Thomas Jefferson, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 1 Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, I have to tell you, this is just one of the greatest moments in what I would have to say in our fight to destroy gun rights suppression. It is just a banner time right now. Absolutely, a crescendo at a moment here that I’m just so excited about. Truly, truly excited, no joke. The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari, meaning accepted the case, so that it means there will be an opinion, a decision, a rule made by the Court finally on so-called “assault weapons”. (https://thereload.com/supreme-court-to-decide-constitutionality-of-ar-15-bans/) Evan Nappen 01:27 Yes, we’ve done it. We have finally gotten to where the U.S. Supreme Court is going to look at the impact of the Second Amendment on this issue. I can tell you that I’ve personally been battling and fighting in the state of New Jersey since it was first enacted in May of 1990. Looking back to those days, I remember just thinking, man, hopefully we’ll one day get the United States Supreme Court to deal with this issue. But back then there was no Heller decision. There was no Supreme Court decision that even said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. We didn’t even have that back then. And when the anti-gun rights crowd embarked on this brand new approach, which it was at the time. Evan Nappen 02:38 To understand the history and where we are right now, why it just is so meaningful, you need to understand that the gun rights attack, the effort by our adversaries, to destroy our right to keep and bear arms, basically, in modern times, started after World War One. It was essentially imported here Page – 2 – of 15 from the U.K., from Great Britain. It had gotten its roots there, and it came across the pond like a cancer. It percolated to the point where by 1934 we ended up with the first National Firearms Act. Prior to ’34 but after World War One, you saw states passing state laws of what we commonly call gun control laws. And the gun control laws of those days first initiated through the ’20s, and we still have remnants of those laws still on the books, by the way, in New Jersey and other places. They were put forward by state legislatures and enacted, and those gun laws were mirrored and influenced and encouraged by what was taking place originally in Great Britain. Evan Nappen 04:22 These laws in America at that time period, and you may find this surprising, and it’s not meant to be bashing in any way of NRA. But they were even supported and promoted by the NRA at that time. The NRA had even put forward what were called the “model firearm laws”. They put model laws together that they wanted states to pass. The NRA saw its mission then in a naive, unfortunately, you know, very naive, as certain gun laws and such, that they would support. Now, since then, that’s not their position, and they’ve learned from this naive mistake. But it led to the 1934 Act, and we’ve suffered under that this entire time. It became the first national gun rights oppression law. Even at the time in the “American Rifleman”, you could read it, and they even praised it. They said, “Ah, and this is how they viewed it. You’ve got to understand, put yourself in the time. They said, “Ah, we’ve solved the gun problem in America.” We’ve passed this great national law, and now we’ve resolved it. We’ve solved it. We’ve addressed it. It’s done. And, of course, it was far from done. But for approximately 30 plus years, that was about it for our national laws on guns being passed. Evan Nappen 06:00 Then along comes the ’68 Gun Control Act, which built upon, to a certain degree, of course, built upon the NFA. We already had that national law and then the ’68 law. Then ’72 and then ’80s and ’90s, and etc. So that foundation got laid. And in between all this, what you mainly saw the fight as being, though, where the modern day focus, the modern day focus was handguns. I remember through the ’80s, before the invention, and that’s what it was, the invention of the “assault weapon” issue. It hadn’t been invented yet. Everything was, we only want to ban handguns. Handguns were the symbol of crime. Every news show on the major controlled networks, there weren’t any cables, you know. You just had ABC, NBC, and CBS, and you had their nightly news. And anytime they talked about crime, whether there was a gun involved or not, they always showed a handgun on the news screen anytime they talked about crime. So the propaganda was put there. Everything was about banning handguns, and the main gun rights oppression group of the day was known as Handgun Control. Handgun Control was a big group. You had players at the time like Pete Shields and others, and this is where the push was. Then along comes Josh Sugarman, who puts out his manifesto. Teddy Nappen 07:50 Closet hoplosexual. Evan Nappen 07:52 Right. His manifesto of the assault weapons and their accessories. And even in his manifesto, he writes that the American public will be fooled by this, because they don’t know the difference between machine guns and semi-autos. This lays the groundwork for this. And lo and behold, we have California Page – 3 – of 15 with Patrick Purdy and the massacre that occurred in that incident, and that’s all the blood they needed to dance in. Then the assault weapon laws became the biggest threat to our Second Amendment rights, and everything weirdly shifted, weirdly shifted, so that handguns, with the growth of concealed carry, which has been an amazing success for gun rights support. Handguns are not the big issue for banning, except for, of course, a modern day focus on Glocks, because they’re easily convertible, right? Except for that. You don’t see the push like you used to ban handguns. Evan Nappen 09:00 Of course, Heller took care of that as well. Saying you can’t. It’s unconstitutional to ban handguns, too. But the push on semi-automatic rifles under the contrived created term of “assault weapon”. They took the German of Sturmgewehr, which was the true original assault weapon, a medium power round in a long arm that’s designed for urban settings. It is select fire, both full auto and semi-auto. And causing this, creating this, and putting it with that scary “assault weapon” moniker to scare the public and sell it. And it was to their credit, to a certain degree successful. It was successful in a number of states that passed state laws, including New Jersey. They passed one of the one worst, most destructive, horrible gun laws that have ruined good people. We’ll talk more about that in a little bit. Evan Nappen 10:06 And even a federal law at one point through the 1994 bill that was a crime, which they call the Crime Bill, but I call the bill that was a crime. We had the first national assault weapon ban. That law sunset and went away in 10 years, which was 2004, and they’ve not been able to reenact another federal ban since. But that ban did end up living on, by the way, in the state of New Jersey, because New Jersey adopted the language of that to save New Jersey’s assault firearm ban from being declared unconstitutionally vague. Now that was started by a case that I did, State v. Merrill, where I had the law declared unconstitutional for vagueness because of the term “substantially identical”, which was undefined. What does “substantially identical” even mean? How can something be substantially and identical at the same time? It’s like saying almost exact. Nothing is almost exact. It’s either exact or it isn’t. And because of the vagueness of that term, it was found unconstitutional by Judge Michael Farron, Monmouth County. We knocked out the case. Evan Nappen 11:21 That case was then brought into federal court by the gun rights groups, and that’s where the Attorney General, in order to save it, adopted the 1994 federal crime bill standard that was feature specific. We still live by that today in New Jersey, as to what makes a compliant gun or not, as to the definition of “substantially identical”. The court said, well, now that you know the definition, it’s no longer vague, and therefore it’s constitutional, which is, of course, a judicial lie, a fallacy, a falsehood. Because what that means is that somehow in 1990 our legislators passed an unconstitutionally vague law that did not have definition and somehow knew that in 1994 the federal government would pass a law that defines the undefined law in New Jersey. That’s just ridiculousness squared. But nonetheless it is law, at least as it stands in New Jersey now. We saw other states and other counties constantly push on the so-called “assault weapon” ban, a focus being on the big bad AR-15. We’ve had fight after fight. Page – 4 – of 15 Page – 5 – of 15 Evan Nappen 12:35 And as our battle for Second Amendment rights continued through the courts, we got the trifecta. We got the Heller finding of what we all knew in our hearts was true, that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We got McDonald, which said this doesn’t just apply to the federal government, it applies to all states and localities. And then we got Bruen that laid out the test of constitutionality and gave us the requirement that carry permits must be issued, must be issued. With that buildup of having the trifecta, we’ve now gotten more cases from the Supreme Court that solidify this approach. And just now, in this moment in our lifetimes, the Supreme Court has finally accepted the challenge to the bans of so-called “assault weapons”. The name of the case. Teddy Nappen 13:36 Particularly those two cases. Evan Nappen 13:39 Yes, Viramontes v. Cook County, and Grant versus Higgins. Now, those cases, the Cook County case is the Illinois’ local county. It’s a local assault weapon ban ordinance, just an ordinance banning. And then the other case they took was in Connecticut, which is a statewide ban. Why do that? Well, what’s great is they’re going at anywhere and everything, whether it’s local or state. The challenge is across the board, as per McDonald. It’s incorporated both local and state. So we now have a certiorari grant combining two cases, and it isn’t just limited to Connecticut and this one local county in Illinois. Their decision will reach all localities, all states, and stand in the future with our win, that I am confident we will win, to stop future federal laws on this. Here’s the actual. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 14:52 I will point out that this is just something the we. I always keep an eye on, like all the arguments the Left always do. I always love the ad hominem attack, where they say. Well, this is just some Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which is they are a party to both cases. (https://saf.org/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-saf-assault-weapons-cases/) They’re the ones that brought the cases. Second Amendment Foundation was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition. They brought the Vermont. Evan Nappen 15:16 And second Amendment Foundation. Teddy Nappen 15:17 And Second Amendment Foundation, along with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. They always try to say. Evan Nappen 15:21 Teddy, there are also individual plaintiffs that are very important, that have standing, that have gone this distance. So, this is actual people and organizations. Teddy Nappen 15:32 Yeah, astroturf. Page – 6 – of 15 Evan Nappen 15:32 Yeah, well, astroturf, that’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 15:36 Yeah, but that is. Evan Nappen 15:37 I mean. Yeah. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 15:40 Just to take that in. Throughout history, just look at the cases throughout, like some of the major Supreme Court cases. I think it was, what was it, either.. I think it was like maybe Plessy versus there was one regular Supreme Court case where it was brought by the, the.. it was about segregation. It was the train companies, where they’re trying to make sure they didn’t have to make extra cars for separating blacks and whites. And it was brought, and they actually set it up to have the case, to get the individual arrested for the segregation. It’s not the first time you’ve had organizations, and that’s throughout all, like a vast majority of cases where you have other. Evan Nappen 16:22 Listen, Teddy. Astroturf? Rosa Parks was a setup. Rosa Parks at the back of the bus, racial segregation. What do you think? It was engineered to make the challenge! Yeah, so don’t give me that. You want to put the issues forward and get the issues decided. Good, good. They have actual plaintiffs. They have actual people that are suffering under these laws, and they have organizations that represent vast amounts of members. It’s fine. It’s real. The assault firearm bans are real, and in New Jersey, their impact has been one of absolute destructive power. But let me just tell you what the court, just to close this, so we know exactly what they’re going to decide. Here is the question presented that they have granted certiorari on. Here it is, ready? Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess the AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles. This is great! One of the criteria that the antis are going to use, is they’re going to say, well, it has to be arms that are commonly possessed. Well, the AR-15 is the most commonly possessed rifle in America. As a matter of fact, folks, there are more AR-15s than there are Ford F150 pickup trucks! Let that sink in. Teddy Nappen 18:08 That was the other argument I’ve been seeing from The Trace. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/06/assault-weapons-bans-supreme-court-2a/) They just did their whole, you know, boo hoo, whining, and crying. It was from Chip Brownlee. Guess the first thing they highlight? This is the fight for the dangerous and unusual AR-15. Like that’s the common use. That’s the spin that they’re going to use. They’re trying to lay the groundwork on, is that whole idea of. Evan Nappen 18:34 Well, you know why? They don’t have historical analogs under the Bruen test anymore, that can help them. Their analogs have had their legs cut off. The one they loved was about the Black Codes, where they banned blacks from Bowie knives and guns, or whatever. And Alito, just in the recent opinion, made it clear that’s a tainted relic. It can’t be taken seriously. So, forget it. That analog is out the Page – 7 – of 15 window. They just revealed, based on research by Stephen Halbrook, that the precedent claimed for carrying – as a matter of fact, this was even in Kuhns. One of the precedents relied upon by the court was a law that never was a law. It was simply something in some Frenchman’s book that talked about it. But the actual law was not how they’re citing it at all. Their analogs are fraught with fraud, fraught with being completely tossed in the garbage can, and they know it. When it comes to that Bruen test of history, text and tradition. In order for a law to be upheld and found not to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the Government has the burden of showing the past analogs that there were other laws that were like that law that make this new law acceptable. And they don’t have that. They do not have it. So, they’re falling back, Teddy, to it’s not common use. Well, that’s falls flat on its face. They’re falling back on what? What’s the classic? Why don’t you tell us? What’s the classic when all else fails for them to cry about? Teddy Nappen 20:34 Blood In The Streets. That’s Blood In The Streets. They always cite two BITS. We have to consider the gun violence when considering this. All that goes right to Brown. Evan Nappen 20:43 Public policy. They always go back to the public policy arguments, public policy, and guess what? That doesn’t cut it! That doesn’t justify infringement of the Second Amendment. That argument is dead in the water. It’s not the test. It’s not a balancing test. Balancing tests aren’t allowed. Done, dead, gone. You can’t balance public policy. Can’t do it anymore. They know they’re going to be crushed, and I cannot wait for that day. I cannot wait till, at the latest, it’ll be next June. We’re going to have a decision that removes finally. I know it in my bones. Gets rid of, ends this travesty called the “assault weapon” ban. Let me tell you something. These laws have destroyed good people. These laws have created more harm than they claim the firearms themselves have created, especially in states like New Jersey. Evan Nappen 22:00 It isn’t just that an individual can’t have that gun or this gun. It’s the aggressive insanity of enforcement destroying people’s lives. If you get convicted of possession of an “assault firearm” in New Jersey, right? An AR-15 that has a bayonet mount on it and a pistol grip. You are now guilty of possession of an “assault firearm” because of a bayonet mount. You’re looking at 10 years in State Prison with a minimum mandatory three and a half years. No chance of parole. Three and a half years – minimum mandatory, folks. No way around it. No way. If you’re convicted of that, the judge has zero discretion. You can be Mother Teresa, and you’ll have to get three and a half years minimum mandatory in State Prison because you had a gun that had a bayonet mount and a pistol grip. You can only have one offending feature, and the pistol grip is one offending feature, right out of the box. And you had two because your other one was a bayonet mount. You know how important bayonet mounts are to crime. I mean, come on. What about all the drive-by bayonetings we have to take care of here, right? Folks, that’s how they.. Teddy Nappen 22:00 I think you also. Just looking at the future, because from the facts of where everything’s lined up, yeah, we’re going to win. And just seeing that right now, the way things lay out, I look to. Page – 8 – of 15 Evan Nappen 23:45 Well, we don’t want to be overconfident, but we. Teddy Nappen 23:48 I understand. Fine, cautiously optimistic. Evan Nappen 23:52 But I am cautiously optimistic. I am incredibly cautiously optimistic with an emphasis on optimistic. Teddy Nappen 23:59 I always look to what is left of their, what would be the next step, then on there on the gun right suppressionist? Because the only thing I could think of is they’re just going to try to put. Evan Nappen 24:09 Wait, wait, wait. Hold that thought for a minute. I just want to finish about the other destruction that has occurred. Like I said, it’s not just that you get arrested and you’re charged with assault firearm. Then you’re thrown in the Gulag, and they want to hold you until your trial. You’re going to spend at least a week, even if your lawyer can get you out before your trial. You have that fight. Then they use it as a licensing disqualifier. If you had an assault firearm, you’re banned from ever having guns again. It doesn’t matter. It’s an assault firearm. On top of that, they have made assault firearm possession not releasable under the Gulag. Remember, we’ve talked about this. It becomes a criteria where there’s a presumption for you to be held in jail. Presumption in favor all over this nonsense. So, you see it’s far-reaching, and what happens when someone inadvertently gets involved in this? Your life gets destroyed. You lose your career. You lose your family. You can lose your freedom. You lose your gun rights, and it’s devastating to people. And then there are those that are doing hard time because they are otherwise lawful possessors. It doesn’t matter. They’re doing the time, having their life destroyed, and having been turned into felons. Evan Nappen 25:40 So, let me just say this. After this decision is a tremendous win for our gun rights and for civil rights, because it’s in the same category as the First Amendment, folks. It’s in the same category as a fundamental right under the Bill of Rights. What I want to see after that decision is reparations to gun owners. That’s right. Reparations to gun owners. You know, they talk on the other side about reparations for slavery to generations later that were never slaves, and they want reparations. Here we will have reparations to individuals who are still alive and have suffered. To anybody that had to give up one of their guns that never should have had to. To those that went into the Gulag and suffered that never should have. To those who have done State Prison sentences that never should have. To those who have lost their gun rights, who have had their families, their lives, their freedom, and their fortunes, all destroyed. Reparations to them. Wait till after this decision comes down. Then we push for reparations. We don’t let it end. Oh, sure. Is that difficult? Will it be hard? Yeah, but it’s no more hard, and frankly, less, way less, of an ask than those asking for reparations for slavery, where we don’t even have the victims of that alive today. Page – 9 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 27:09 It’s also very easy to quantify, because you go into just the legal fees that were brought, the time in jail. Plenty of people have sued and won on those cases. So, it’s something you can actually determine, as opposed to generational racism. It’s ridiculous, as ridiculous sounds, but to this end, where someone who had their life destroyed because of the gun control that they have pushed over the years. Evan Nappen 27:39 That was utterly a violation of our fundamental rights and Second Amendment civil rights. It absolutely is going to lay groundwork for at least tremendous litigation, and really we should have eventually a federal reparations law requiring states to pay that ever had these laws. To compensate individuals who suffered under their tyranny. So, Teddy, you had something else to mention. I know you did. Teddy Nappen 27:39 Yes. So, the one thing I was looking at, whenever I always look to our opponents, because I try not to think of them as being stupid. Even though they are pretty retarded on a lot of different fronts, but they always keep pushing. And I remember this term for it, of what they were described. The Left and the Marxists are line steppers. They go with the idea of what can we get away with, what can we push for, because they always go for that. It’s always just progressivism for progressive sake. Cut to trans ideology. Cut to, you know, we’re going to take your children away and then transition them. Cut to any form of the Left in its insanity. Teddy Nappen 28:16 I always think what will be the next push, and I can see it right now. Repealing the Second Amendment will be the next step. Evan Nappen 28:16 100 percent. Teddy Nappen 28:36 Yes, that will. That’s the only. The only thing I can think of is what they did to Penny, what they did to all the other self-defense cases that we’ve had. Fine, you can have your firearms, but if you ever use them, we will drag you through the courts. We’ll make your life a living hell. We will make it so that people will want to murder you and come to your house and dox you. That’s the only thing at this point. That’s all they have. They are the party of violence, that is shown. You have doxing websites they run. That is the only two avenues I can see for that, and also suing the gun shops into oblivion, which we need to do something with the, I think, what is it, the PLCAA, where it’s the protection. Evan Nappen 29:59 Yeah, PLCAA. (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) Right. Teddy Nappen 30:02 We need to improve and expand PLCAA, and just say no. Stop wasting the state’s money. So, I don’t know what the test would be, but we need to. Page – 10 – of 15 Evan Nappen 30:12 Well, the fight will definitely change, and you know, the gun rights oppressors are not going to give up. But. Teddy Nappen 30:21 Of courses not. Evan Nappen 30:21 It will absolutely take away one of their actually most successful modern gun rights oppression tax. This will be one of. This will destroy what has actually been one of their areas of success, to be honest. They have succeeded in multiple states, and even at one point federally over this. This will destroy it, kill it, and they’re going to be knocked back on their heels very hard by it. And then we need to finish the job. Evan Nappen 31:00 Repeal Hughes Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:01 We need to go at reparations and make it so that when any of these governments decide to embark on rights violations, that down the road we make them pay. We just don’t kill the law. We just don’t knock it out, so that it no longer has effect. We have to make them pay for what they did to good people, and we do that through reparations. Teddy Nappen 31:29 We should also repeal the Hughes. Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:31 That’s going to build. Once you get this case, then, of course, the rest of NFA, any other hardware bands, all these things are going to be on the table. We will have even stronger, better case law to take it all out as the house of cards built by the gun rights oppressors collapses. Hey, and by the way, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot, and that is, of course, where we get our training. And I want to tell you that they are offering New Jersey concealed carry, so you can get your CCARE so you can get your carry permit out of Jersey. They have a new price for their CCARE. It’s incredible. It’s only $225! You can sign up at WeShoot and get their carry course, and it is great. You’ll get your PTC certification, and they really set the gold standard there at WeShoot. You’ll be able to get re-qualification, too. This is the training that police departments use. They’re also USCCA and NRA backed courses. It’s all combined. This is where you can reserve and get it done, so you can get your carry. Evan Nappen 33:03 Particularly now where we’re knocking out “sensitive places”, as we just did with the Wolford case, which actually impacts New Jersey “sensitive places”. We’re going to see more and more availability of where we can carry, and every carry permit holder is another vote for carry. Probably by now, we are well over 100,000 carry permits in New Jersey. You know, it used to be 600. Literally just 600 carry Page – 11 – of 15 permits. Not 600,000. Six hundred. And now we’re in the 100,000 or damn close, if not over it, of permit carriers. I just showed you how their oppression law was so successful before, and after Bruen, it’s dead. Evan Nappen 33:50 So, go to weshootusa.com. Check out We Shoot, and I know you’ll love WeShoot, too. They have great training, and not only can you get your New Jersey permit certification, your CCARE, but they also offer special training to get that for seniors, 65 or older. They have a special deal for seniors – only $185. You can get your training there. They also offer New York City non-resident carry. They are offering New York City non-resident carry. They have it at a fantastic new low price of $289, and you can get your New York City carry, which also covers New York State non-resident carry permit. They’ll do all the training, and this is really great. Anthony Zalo will be doing this course. It spans two days, and it covers firearm safety and storage, pistol ammunition basics, de-escalation techniques, federal and state law, live fire training. If you’re seeking even more certifications, they offer Maryland Wear and Carry Certification, as well as Washington, D.C. carry permits for just $150 each. On Tuesday, August 4, they will be holding their New York resident and non-resident carry courses. Evan Nappen 35:37 WeShoot also has Civilian Shoot House Training. This is really cool. Their Civilian Shoot House Training, so you can understand how to clear rooms, move with purpose, and make decisions under pressure. This is great for homeowners and parents and security team. Anybody who’s serious about protecting their home and community, check out WeShoot’s Civilian Shoot House Training. They have that scheduled out. You can sign up for Friday, July 31st for that Training. They also have adult CPR / AED and Stop the Bleed, so that you know how to treat wounds. They’re offering that training on Monday, July 20. And for new shooters, they have great training called “From Nervous to Bullseye”. If you’re entry level, you want basic training. Here’s what you can do. They’re also offering weekend classes, and you can “Hit Your Weekend Target” with their great instructors – Grant Gallagher, Tony Zollo, and Lance Hubeny. They’re all there. Sign up at WeShoot. They are a phenomenal resource. We’re talking here about WeShoot in Lakewood. They offer USCCA and Sig Sauer Academy – “Close Quarter Defense Fundamentals. I mean, can you believe this? Just fantastic training. Make sure you check out weshootusa.com. You’ll love the range, you’ll love the pro shop, and you’ll love the people. They are the best. Go to weshootusa.com today, and take a trip down to Lakewood. They are right there in Central Jersey, conveniently off the Parkway. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 37:40 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of Jersey Gun Law, and you need to get your copy today. Go to EvanNappen.com and get a copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It’ll help keep you from being a GOFU. Hey, we are now celebrating, of course, the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This is a great moment in our history where that fantastic, earth shattering, world changing, humanity changing, document was signed and began the birth of our wonderful America, the greatest country on earth. I have nothing but reverence for our Founding Fathers and our Founding documents, and celebrate 100%. Page – 12 – of 15 Evan Nappen 38:48 Let me tell you about the author. Of course, the Committee of Five technically authored The Declaration, but the majority of the credit is given to, and I hope you know this, Thomas Jefferson. But let me tell you about how great Thomas Jefferson was. Not just because of his phenomenal presidency, his assertion of our national reputation against the Muslim pirates, the pirates of the day, standing up to them, and also the Louisiana Purchase, and so many amazing things under Jefferson. And, of course, the Declaration of Independence. But let me tell you something else about Thomas Jefferson. I want you to know, when it comes to firearms, Thomas Jefferson was one of us. He couldn’t be more one of us. Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest gun owning founding fathers to live. Evan Nappen 40:04 And let me read you, especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The man who wrote that and made us so where we are today, we can be proud and free. Listen to some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, specifically about guns. Here’s a great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Yeah, he said that. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. That’s from Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution draft of 1776. Here’s another phenomenal quote by Thomas Jefferson. “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Let that sink in, folks. He preferred dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. He wrote that in a letter to James Madison in 1787 . Here’s another great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” That’s right. Enemies, foreign and domestic, my friends. You heard what Jefferson said. Evan Nappen 41:40 “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Pure common sense spoken by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, quoting the 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria. Here’s another quote from Thomas Jefferson. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” Let that one sink in, folks. Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Peter Carr from August of 1785. Evan Nappen 42:27 “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; and they may exercise it by themselves, and that is their right and duty to be armed at all times. Let all those quotes from Thomas Jefferson sink in. Think about them as we celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the man that was the chief engineer of that document and how that man viewed our Second Amendment rights. Page – 13 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 43:43 I will also say, like, I don’t know if you did. Did you ever get to go to Monticello? Did you and Mom get to go? Evan Nappen 44:09 Thanks for mentioning it. No, that is on my bucket list, and I’m going there. My wife went. You’ve gone. Teddy Nappen 44:18 No, I didn’t. I didn’t get to go. Evan Nappen 44:20 What? You didn’t either? Teddy Nappen 44:20 Nope. Just Mom. Evan Nappen 44:21 Teddy, you and I have got to go. Teddy Nappen 44:23 Just Mom got to go. That’s why. Evan Nappen 44:25 This is just wrong. I’ve got to go to Monticello. I’ve meaning to get there. And it’s bugging the hell out of me. Teddy Nappen 44:33 If you ever do go there, they have his pistols. His famed pistols that were, I think, gifted to him. (https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/firearms) Yeah, his famed twin pocket pistols that were gifts from, I believe it was a pair of Turkish pistols received from General Isaac Zane in place of a monetary bequest. Evan Nappen 45:07 Bequest. He gifted him these pistols. Teddy Nappen 45:11 Okay. Evan Nappen 45:12 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 45:14 It was also kind of interesting that Jefferson loved to go out and do competition shoots. He would do a lot of them, and he was a fairly good marksman. There were marks in his letters showing that he noted Page – 14 – of 15 in his accounts, I won a shooting in one of six, it was a muster with Captain Jacob Moon’s Albany County Militia Company. He lost two to six, but as he grew older, his limited exercise. He moved more to firearms and hunting over his horseback riding. He even had designs, and there was accounting of a double-barreled gun lock that he had drawn. So, there’s various other bits in his accounts. Evan Nappen 46:01 Like I said, he’s one of us, man. One hundred percent. Hey, this is wonderful, an incredibly important part of our heritage and our tradition. Jefferson stands tall. All the Founding Fathers were, of course, gun owners and knew the importance of arms, but Jefferson is special, without a doubt. Jefferson is special. Evan Nappen 46:32 And you know, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU. This is a GOFU that every time in the practice of gun law, there’s something new. Some other GOFU that I’d not even heard about before, and it just blows me away. It constantly gets crazier and worse, and I want everyone to understand this GOFU, which is, of course, a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Where individuals are now experiencing expensive lessons, or have experienced expensive lessons that you can hopefully avoid for free by listening to Gun Lawyer. Evan Nappen 47:16 So, this week’s GOFU concerns the following. We have a couple, a husband and wife, that are not getting along well with one another, and okay, it happens, right? It happens. Well, it ends up where at some point there’s a fight, and like the old kind of comedy issue you’ve seen on TV, where often it’s the woman, it doesn’t have to be, but often is, throws the husband’s clothing or the belongings out the window to get out. That kind of a thing. Well, in this case, apparently his firearms were tossed out onto the lawn. I guess it sends a message as to throwing out things that the other party believes they care about. But whatever. I’m not going to get into the psychology of it. The bottom line is that this takes place. What happens? Well, it ends up where the police get involved. The police get involved because it falls under the so-called banner of domestic violence. Anytime there is domestic violence, police are called in over any claim of domestic violence, and it’s so broad. Remember, domestic violence could be anything, even harassment, which the essence of which is doing something to purposely annoy another. Now, I know none of you have ever purposely annoyed your spouse or your boyfriend or your girlfriend, but if you did, then you arguably committed domestic violence for harassment. Evan Nappen 48:57 Anyway, that can bring the police into your lives, and this is where you get to live the famous saying of Ronald Reagan. “We’re here from the Government, and we’re here to help.” And, of course, that was one of the best, most sarcastic things that Reagan ever said. Because we’re here from the Government and we’re here to help, is of course the exact opposite. And that’s what happened here. The Government gets involved, and both parties are questioned over various allegations. It doesn’t matter what. The bottom line is that the domestic violence forms are filled out where the issue is documented, and the wife is asked, do you want a restraining order? And she wisely says no. This is internal. They’re squabbling, or whatever. She doesn’t need a restraining order. The husband, who related his whole side of everything there too, is asked, “do you want a restraining order? And he wisely said no, as well. Page – 15 – of 15 Evan Nappen 50:11 So, now you have a couple that are trying. They’re going to do whatever, but they don’t want restraining orders. They don’t want the Government in their life. They’re not interested in that. But what happens? The Government files Red Flags, TERPOs, Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Orders on both of them. Neither of them wanted a restraining order. Neither one wanted it, but it didn’t matter. The Government now files to take away both of their gun rights. To take away their guns and put them on a list of extreme risk. This puts you on a database that could even arguably be accessed by TSA or others that you’re a danger. It has farther reaching collateral consequences than just taking guns and taking away your gun rights. Putting you into the court system now to have to individually fight TERPOs, because we’re from the Government and we’re here to help. That, my friends, is the GOFU. Keep it in mind at all times about being from the Government and there to help. Especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Evan Nappen 51:37 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that. Speaker 3 51:50 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E297 Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

E. Jean Carroll has AGAIN kicked Donald Trump's butt in court. And this time, it was in the United States Supreme Court.Remember a first jury found Donald Trump liable and awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million. Then, a second jury found Donald Trump liable once again for defamation and awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million. And now - the Supreme Court told Trump, "Nope - we're not going to review or undo that first $5 million jury award." So, what did Trump do? He defamed Ms. Carroll a third time! Because of course he did!No one can ever accuse Trump of learning from his mistakes. Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

E. Jean Carroll has AGAIN kicked Donald Trump's butt in court. And this time, it was in the United States Supreme Court.Remember a first jury found Donald Trump liable and awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million. Then, a second jury found Donald Trump liable once again for defamation and awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million. And now - the Supreme Court told Trump, "Nope - we're not going to review or undo that first $5 million jury award." So, what did Trump do? He defamed Ms. Carroll a third time! Because of course he did!No one can ever accuse Trump of learning from his mistakes. Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Will we return to the bad old days of existence in substandard hospitals and nursing homes?  Or will we fight to preserve our lives in the community? Sadly, this is not a rhetorical question.   In 1999, the United States Supreme Court passed the Olmstead decision determining that people with disabilities should not be forced into institutions when they can be safely and appropriately supported in community settings. Or, in other words, people with mental and other disabilities no longer had to be incarcerated in oppressive institutions when they could reside in whatever type of community living was most appropriate to the individual.  But in a memo issued in June, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel upended that guidance. It argued that neither the Americans with Disabilities Act, nor Section 504, two major disability rights laws, requires states to provide services in the most mainstream setting.   Pushing Limits on Friday, July 3 interviews Eric Harris, Associate Executive Director of External Affairs for Disability Rights California, to discuss Olmstead and the threat against it.  This Program is hosted and produced by Eddie Ytuarte.  Click here for a relevant article. For more info on our guest click here or read below:  Eric Harris is DRC's Associate Executive Director of External Affairs with an extensive career working closely with disability leaders, community members, and elected officials throughout the country to progress change for the disability community. Eric Harris Harris brings significant local, state and federal policy experience, having worked for Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Democratic National Committee and the California and Hawaii State NAACP.  Mr. Harris has led discussions on disability pride, inclusion and access on platforms throughout the country. He has spoken at Harvard Law School, the University of California at Berkeley School of Medicine and at the White House.   Harris started his time at DRC in 2019 working in the legislation and estrategic partnerships and community engagement units. He served on the State Independent Living Council as a Governor Newsom appointee and as a board member for the Resources for Independent Living in Sacramento. He grew up in Sacramento, California and was an elite wheelchair basketball player.  “Creating public policy that improves the lives of disabled people has been my life's mission. I look forward to working closely with intersectional disability leaders throughout the state to improve the lives of all people with disabilities.”  For a full program transcription, click here The post Olmstead Under Threat – Pushing Limits – July 3, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

In this powerful episode Gene and Michael reflect on America's 250-year journey, discussing why millions around the world continue to admire the United States.As international visitors arrive for the FIFA World Cup, many are expressing amazement at America's freedom, opportunity, and unmatched scale. The conversation also explores the latest Supreme Court rulings on immigration, birthright citizenship, and the growing political divide shaping the nation's future.In this episode:✅ America's 250-year legacy of liberty and freedom✅ Why foreign visitors are praising the United States✅ Supreme Court immigration decisions explained✅ Birthright citizenship debate✅ The future of the Democrat Party✅ Socialism vs. American principles✅ Why patriotism is making a comebackDo you believe America is experiencing a renewed sense of patriotism? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Washington, D.C. – June 30, 2026: Today, the United States Supreme Court released a decision in two cases: West Virginia v. BPJ and Hecox v. Little in favor of keeping men and boys out of women's sports. This decision is a landmark victory after many notable women athletes have shared their stories of having to surrender victories and their safety when they were forced to compete against male athletes. Texas Values signed onto a legal amicus brief with other family policy organizations in support of female athletes in this case. Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, said: “Today is a monumental day for women and girls in the United States. What the Supreme Court decided today was simply the truth. No woman or girl should have her victory in competition or her privacy in locker rooms be taken from her. Idaho started this bold fight in saving women's sports and Texas will help them fight to the finish on Tuesday.” Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values and U. S. Supreme Court Attorney, who was present in the court room at the U. S. Supreme Court during oral arguments, released the following statement: “This is one of the most important decisions ever by the Supreme Court for young girls, women and fairness in sports, and I'm so glad the court got it right!” Texas currently has two laws protecting female athletes: The Save Girls' Sports Act (HB 25) by Representative Valoree Swanson, which protects girls in sports K-12, and the Save Women's Sports Act (SB 15) by Senator Mayes Middleton, which protects women in collegiate sports. Representative Barbara Ehardt, the author of the Idaho law being challenged at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, has come to Texas to testify and support our legislation in Texas to protect female athletes. Currently, 26 states have laws protecting women and girls from being forced to compete against men. The issue has gained national support as polling indicates that the majority of Americans believe that men should not compete in women's sports. The movement gained momentum when Riley Gaines began sharing her story of being forced to compete and share a locker room with male swimmer Will “Lia” Thomas. Texas Values has worked with Riley Gaines and a number of Texas athletes including Kassidy Comer, Brooke Slusser, Jade Dickens, and more. To learn more about the Save Women's Sports laws in Texas, please visit SaveWomensSportsTexas.com/. Texas Values law and policy team members are available for comment. To schedule an interview, please email Ashley at media@txvalues.org or call 737-314-2450 (m). ### About Texas Values Texas Values is the largest statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to standing for faith, family, and freedom in Texas. More information is available at txvalues.org. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to http://txvalues.org/give/

In episode 185, we sit down with Judge Myron Duhart to break down what an appellate court actually does and why those down-ballot judicial races deserve more than a passing glance.Judge Duhart is a native of Toledo, Ohio. He is the proud father of three and has been married to wife Nicole for 29 years. Myron grew up in the central city. He graduated from St. Francis De Sales High School and after graduation, he enlisted in the U.S. Army and was later commissioned as a lieutenant in the Army Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG).While serving his country he earned a B.A. in Political Science from Wright State University Dayton, Ohio and went on to receive his J.D. from the University of Toledo College of Law. Judge Duhart received a L.L.M. in judicial studies from Duke University School of Law and he attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Also Judge Duhart has been a long time adjunct lecturer in law at the University of Toledo College of Law where he teaches trial practice.Throughout his legal career, he litigated a number of high profile criminal cases all over northwest Ohio and was one of a select cadre of attorneys certified by the State of Ohio to handle death penalty cases. He has been admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.In January 2011, Judge Duhart was appointed by former Governor Ted Strickland as one of ten (10) judges who serve on the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas bench. In addition to hearing serious felony criminal cases and large civil cases, Judge Duhart has served as a commercial docket judge hearing cases dealing with business-related disputes. In 2020, Judge Duhart was elected to the Court of Appeals where he served as Presiding judge.As an Army veteran, Judge Duhart served this country with distinction. As an attorney he worked tirelessly to protect the rights afforded to citizens both rich and poor. As a volunteer, he has unselfishly devoted his time and talent to a wide variety of causes. As a judge on the 6th District Court of Appeals he will continue to act with fairness and integrity.Resources: * Re-elect Judge Myron Duhart* Social Media:* Facebook* Instagram* Article about the Capital Care Network/Reproductive Rights case Judge Duhart worked on in 2016We're bringing together digital creators from across the state to build a powerful digital organizing network called Ohio Creators for Progress. Support and donate to this effort below! ⬇️Connect with United SHE Stands:* Substack* Instagram* TikTok* YouTube* Threads* Buy us a coffee ☕️This episode was edited by Kevin Tanner. Learn more about him and his services here:* Website* Instagram This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.unitedshestands.com/subscribe

Washington, D.C. – June 30, 2026: Today, the United States Supreme Court released a decision in two cases: West Virginia v. BPJ and Hecox v. Little in favor of keeping men and boys out of women's sports. This decision is a landmark victory after many notable women athletes have shared their stories of having to surrender victories and their safety when they were forced to compete against male athletes. Texas Values signed onto a legal amicus brief with other family policy organizations in support of female athletes in this case. Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, said: “Today is a monumental day for women and girls in the United States. What the Supreme Court decided today was simply the truth. No woman or girl should have her victory in competition or her privacy in locker rooms be taken from her. Idaho started this bold fight in saving women's sports and Texas will help them fight to the finish on Tuesday.” Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values and U. S. Supreme Court Attorney, who was present in the court room at the U. S. Supreme Court during oral arguments, released the following statement: “This is one of the most important decisions ever by the Supreme Court for young girls, women and fairness in sports, and I'm so glad the court got it right!” Texas currently has two laws protecting female athletes: The Save Girls' Sports Act (HB 25) by Representative Valoree Swanson, which protects girls in sports K-12, and the Save Women's Sports Act (SB 15) by Senator Mayes Middleton, which protects women in collegiate sports. Representative Barbara Ehardt, the author of the Idaho law being challenged at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, has come to Texas to testify and support our legislation in Texas to protect female athletes. Currently, 26 states have laws protecting women and girls from being forced to compete against men. The issue has gained national support as polling indicates that the majority of Americans believe that men should not compete in women's sports. The movement gained momentum when Riley Gaines began sharing her story of being forced to compete and share a locker room with male swimmer Will “Lia” Thomas. Texas Values has worked with Riley Gaines and a number of Texas athletes including Kassidy Comer, Brooke Slusser, Jade Dickens, and more. To learn more about the Save Women's Sports laws in Texas, please visit SaveWomensSportsTexas.com/. Texas Values law and policy team members are available for comment. To schedule an interview, please email Ashley at media@txvalues.org or call 737-314-2450 (m). ### About Texas Values Texas Values is the largest statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to standing for faith, family, and freedom in Texas. More information is available at txvalues.org. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to http://txvalues.org/give/

Barry Markson joined Bruce & Gaydos to explain the United States Supreme Court decisions on birthright citizenships and transgender athletes.

In breaking news, fireworks have started early in DC, as the United States Supreme Court issues 3 bombshell decisions against: Trump's attacks on mail-in ballots and the midterm elections; his attempt at a hostile takeover of the Federal Reserve; and his efforts to have himself absolved of sexually abusing E Jean Carroll. Popok reports. Select Quote: Save more than 50% at https://SelectQuote.com/legalaf today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Secretary Fontes joined Bruce & Gaydos to explain the United States Supreme Court decision that ruled states can count late-arriving mailed ballots, rejecting a Trump-led challenge. Secretary Fontes explained why this decision does not impact Arizona.

Two strong earthquakes in Venezuela just seconds apart leave the country in shock. The death is regrettably rising as rescuers from around the world are heading to the disaster zone. Plus, from immigration to guns, new major decisions from the United States Supreme Court.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream joins The Marc Cox Morning Show live from the steps of the United States Supreme Court — and the stakes couldn't be higher. With 12 opinions still pending and seven on the watch list, Shannon breaks down why birthright citizenship, trans athletes in women's sports, and mail-in ballot deadlines could all drop at any moment. She sounds the alarm on the socialist sweep reshaping the Democrat Party from New York to Washington D.C. itself — where a majority of primary voters now favor socialism over capitalism. And she reveals the frightening security reality facing Supreme Court justices who live under 24-7 protective details after swatting incidents and death threats. This is history happening in real time — and The Marc Cox Morning Show has a front row seat. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #ShannonBream #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS #BirthrightCitcitizenship #FoxNewsSunday #TransAthletes #ElectionIntegrity #DemocraticSocialists #ConservativeRadio #STLRadio #AmericaFirst #MAGA #ConservativeTalk #BreakingNews #America250

Bruce & Gaydos react to the United States Supreme Court decisions reegarding asylum seekers and the U.S. border and the Temporary Protected Status program.

Barry Markson joined Bruce & Gaydos to discuss the United States Supreme Court decisions on asylum cases and the Temporary Protected Status program.

Samuel Alito may very well be the most dangerous man on the United States Supreme Court. Since the 1970's he has been conspiring in the conservative circles. He has been involved in dark money schemes and has most likely been bought at this point. And he has been on the wrong side of the most consequential Supreme Court rulings of the last 20 years. Let's talk about it. SCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aEIWOgdzD85riAwHIoMB6v9ieY1uKos6a6XObly7ENs/edit?usp=sharing Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Chief Justice's Open Bible #RTTBROS #NIGHTLIGHT #USA250 #AMERICA250 #NATION250The Chief Justice's Open Bible“"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”— Psalm 119:105THE STORYJohn Jay is one of the most important and most forgotten men of the founding era.He co-authored the Federalist Papers alongside Hamilton and Madison. He served as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, appointed by Washington himself. He was a diplomat, a governor, a statesman of the first rank. And he was, without qualification or apology, a committed Christian who made no separation between his public life and his personal faith.Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers," Jay declared, "and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.Jay served as president of the American Bible Society. He believed that the Bible was the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. The first Chief Justice of the United States spent his final years distributing Bibles.THE REFLECTIONThere is a tendency in our time to divide the founding era between religious founders and secular founders. John Jay will not cooperate with that narrative.Here was a man at the absolute center of America's legal and political founding, the first interpreter of the Constitution, and he believed that the Bible was the foundational text for human happiness. He said it publicly, repeatedly, without embarrassment.What he models for us is something rarer than political savvy: the integration of faith and public life without apology. He did not have a public faith and a private faith. He had one faith, and he carried it everywhere.Psalm 119:105 was not a decorative verse for John Jay. It was an operating principle. The Word of God was the lamp by which he navigated the most consequential legal questions of the new nation.THE PATRIOT'S PRAYERLord, we thank You for men who carried Your Word into every room, the courtroom, the congress, the cabinet, without shame and without compartmentalization. Forgive us for the faith we have kept private when it should have been public. Let Your Word be a lamp to our feet in every room we enter today, not just the sacred ones. In Jesus' name, Amen.PRAY IT FORWARD: Is there a room in your life, a workplace, a relationship, a role you occupy, where you have left your faith at the door? Ask God for the courage to carry it in.

Bert Mizusawa is a retired major general in the United States Army, serving in the Army from 1979 to 2015. Mizusawa also served in the United States Senate as a professional staff member and as a Senior Executive in the Pentagon, making him one of only a handful of individuals to serve at flag rank in the military as well as in both the legislative and executive branches. Mizusawa is also an attorney and is admitted to the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, Virginia and the United States Supreme Court. Awards: Distinguished Service Medal Silver Star Defense Superior Service Medal Legion of Merit Bronze Star Medal Combat Infantryman Master Parachutist Ranger Air Assault Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge Humanitarian Service Medal 1983 Soviet defector incident Mizusawa led the Joint Security Force in a historic firefight against North Korean forces. Mizusawa was awarded the Silver Star for “exceptional valor and gallantry in action” while serving as the Commander of the Joint Security Force (JSF) Company at Panmunjom, Korea on 22 and 23 November 1984. His citation reads “In reaction to thirty attacking North Korean soldiers in pursuit of a Soviet defector, Captain Mizusawa's outstanding leadership and aggressive actions in leading his company while under fire were instrumental in defeating the enemy. Additionally, he personally led the defector to safety while under fire and deliberately, at great risk to himself, exposed himself to the enemy in front of his own troops to ensure the success of his company's combat action. Throughout the intense firefight, Captain Mizusawa displayed a complete disregard for his own personal safety while accomplishing his mission.” Some have credited the successful firefight and rescue of the Soviet defector, which unexpectedly did not result in a Soviet demarche, for convincing President Reagan to hold firm in his negotiations with the Soviet Union, which ultimately led to the end of the Cold War. Meritorious Civilian Service Award

Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream joins The Marc Cox Morning Show and the conversation covers everything the left hopes you miss. In just minutes, the United States Supreme Court could drop rulings that reshape America — birthright citizenship, biological males in women's sports, post-Election Day ballot counting, and presidential power to rein in rogue federal agencies are all on the table. Shannon breaks down exactly what's coming and what it means for every conservative in this country. Then Marc presses her on California's legalized vote harvesting — including that jaw-dropping two-dollar homeless woman video — and even the Washington Post is calling it a damning indictment of blue state governance. Plus FISA expires at midnight tomorrow night and Shannon explains why both sides are scrambling. This is the kind of conversation that reminds you why The Marc Cox Morning Show is the most important hour of your morning. Don't you dare miss it. HASHTAGS: #MarcCoxMorningShow #ShannonBream #FoxNewsSunday #SupremeCourt #BirthrightCitizenship #TransAthletesBan #ElectionIntegrity #BallotHarvesting #California #FISA #ConservativeTalk #MAGA #AmericaFirst #MorningRadio #PatriotMedia #StLouis

The Honorable Zoila Cassanova serves as the Surrogate Judge of Passaic County, where she oversees matters relating to probate, estate administration, guardianships, and adoptions. Known for her thoughtful, compassionate approach to the law, Surrogate Judge Cassanova brings a deep commitment to justice, integrity, and public service to the Surrogate's Court. Since taking office, Surrogate Judge Cassanova has prioritized accessibility, transparency, and efficiency in the Surrogate's Court.  Within months of assuming the position as Surrogate of Passaic, Surrogate Judge Cassanova launched her “Make a Will” event initiative, partnering with legal services and the state bar association, as well as other pro bono legal groups, to provide FREE Last Will & Testaments, Powers of Attorney, and Advance Directives/Willing Wills to Seniors, Veterans, and first responders.   She is also a vocal supporter of initiatives aimed at modernizing court operations, such as becoming the first in the State and County government to introduce Artificial Intelligence as a means of making the Surrogate's Court more accessible to non-English and English speakers alike, which garnered her national recognition as the 2024 National Top 100 Influencers in Local Government.  She has also worked to improve the public's understanding of probate law and guardianship, by expanding legal resources for underserved communities through multilingual information sessions and printed materials.   Passaic County Surrogate, Zoila Cassanova, Esq., is an experienced attorney licensed to practice law in New Jersey, New York, and the United States Supreme Court.  Prior to her election, she built a respected legal career in both public service and private practice, serving as a trusted advisor in the areas of estates and trust, labor and employment law, medical malpractice, immigration, and criminal law. Her legal acumen, combined with a steadfast dedication to the people of Passaic County, has earned her a reputation as a strong advocate for fairness and equity in the legal system.  In 2025, Surrogate Judge Cassanova was nominated by her peers to serve as Surrogate section Chief representing all County Surrogates.  From 2023 to present, she has served on the Judiciary Liaison committee, working with the Judiciary to improve the Chancery/Surrogate process. Ms. Cassanova holds a Bachelor of Science in Labor Relations, a Master of Science in Education, and was a licensed provisional New York State Teacher.  She received her Jurist Doctorate from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she taught and served as Director of the Legal Education Opportunity Program and as a member of the admissions Diversity Council.   In addition to her judicial duties, Surrogate Judge Cassanova is actively involved in community outreach, mentorship programs, and continuing legal education efforts. She is committed to fostering public trust in the Surrogate's Court and ensuring that every individual who comes before the Surrogate's court is treated with dignity and respect.  Surrogate Judge Cassanova's work reflects her belief that the Surrogate's Court is not just a place for legal resolution, but a cornerstone of compassion, service, and justice for families in times of transition. Surrogate Judge Cassanova believes in the importance of mentoring and giving back to the community.  She seizes every opportunity to demystify Surrogate Court, through community outreach and information.  She welcomes the opportunity to visit the community and provide information about probate, guardianships, and adoptions.   Surrogate Judge Cassanova has been recognized by various groups for her professional and academic achievements, as well as her community work.  Among her recent recognitions includes 2024 National Top 100 Influencers in Local Government, Surrogate of the Year – New Jersey Peruvian, Inc.; Exemplary Mother of the Year – Desfile Dominicano, NJ, Ecuadorian American Chamber of Commerce of NJ – International Woman Day's Honoree; Fairleigh Dickerson University – Hispanic Heritage Month Honoree; International Women's Day Purple Festival Honoree; and Passaic County Board of County Commissioners Hispanic Heritage Month Honoree.  Her academic achievements include being a Seton Hall Centennial Scholar and a New Jersey Hispanic Bar Association Scholarship recipient, as well as being an inductee of the Academic Honor Societies: Delta Kappa Phi and Kappa Delta Pi. 

Four courts. Four refusals. And Josh Duggar filed every single one of them expecting a different answer.His first appeal came in 2022 — denied. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction in August 2023. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear his case in June 2024. And on June 1 of this year, Judge Timothy Brooks denied Josh's final motion to vacate — a Section 2255 filing that represented his last procedural avenue. Every legal door is now closed.The ruling was devastating. Josh had eight arguments prepared. His attorney Beau Brindley — who previously represented R. Kelly — came ready to challenge the conviction on constitutional grounds. None of it mattered, because Josh couldn't prove he mailed his motion by the deadline. The prison's own mail log showed no outgoing correspondence from Josh on June 24, 2025 — the date he swore he dropped it in the mailbox. One copy arrived thirty-five days late. The other, fifty-five. The postage amount was off. The printing looked like it came from an outside service, not prison staff. He offered no witnesses. Judge Brooks called the explanation a “magic bullet theory” and ruled his account “simply not credible.”Josh has also been transferred from minimum security at FCI Seagoville to the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth after accumulating three conduct violations and three sentence extensions — pushing his release from August 2032 to February 2033. His prison record reads like a man who has never been told no in a way that stuck. And that's exactly the point. The IBLP system that raised Josh Duggar was built to absorb consequences, not teach them. Confession equaled forgiveness. Authority figures caught you before you hit the ground. Tony Brueski traces the line from blanket training to the federal courtroom — and explains why this outcome was always the predictable one.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JoshDuggar #DuggarAppeal #TrueCrimeToday #HiddenKillers #DuggarFamily #IBLP #FederalCourt #DuggarConviction #JusticeSystem #TrueCrime

A federal judge just found Josh Duggar's sworn testimony not credible — for the second time. The first time, it was Jim Bob on the stand. Same judge. Same courtroom. Same word: not credible.Josh Duggar's motion to vacate his conviction was denied on June 1 after Judge Timothy Brooks ruled that Josh's account of how he mailed his appeal was “something akin to a magic bullet theory.” But the mailing failure is just the latest in a pattern that stretches back decades. Contraband phone in prison. Three sentence extensions. Kicked out of honors housing. Multiple rounds of solitary confinement. And four separate courts — including the United States Supreme Court — telling him his conviction stands.The pattern isn't random. It's architectural. Josh grew up inside the IBLP, where children were subjected to blanket training from infancy — a technique designed to break a child's will through physical compliance. The system taught obedience to authority, not personal responsibility. It taught confession as a closed loop: tell your father, tell your pastor, tell God, and the cycle resets. No outside authority needed. No therapist. No court. When Josh confessed to harming his sisters as a teenager, Jim Bob's response was church elders, a conversation with a state trooper friend, and an IBLP facility — not licensed treatment, not law enforcement, not accountability.Josh has now been transferred from minimum security to the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth. His release date sits at February 2033. He is thirty-eight years old and still operating on the system his parents installed: confess, cry, wait for someone to make it go away. Federal judges don't reset when you say you're sorry. And the Bureau of Prisons doesn't care who your father is.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JoshDuggar #JimBobDuggar #MichelleDuggar #IBLP #DuggarFamily #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BlanketTraining #DuggarFamilySecrets #BillGothard

The pardon power that the President has is, as Constitutional prerogatives go, about as absolute as it can be.  Coupled with the friendly majority Donald Trump has on the United States Supreme Court, which gave him immunity from prosecution for many crimes charged in connection with his pardons, and you have what some call a pardon-palooza going on in his second term.  Most egregious to some, like this observer, was the blanket pardon of all those involved in the January 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol (not to mention the ‘stupid on stilts’ weaponization fund.) Remember when his former Attorney General, Pam Bondi, in her confirmation hearing, said that such pardons would be handled on a case -by- case basis.  President Trump has been doling out pardons for political loyalty, pay-to-play corruption, and even state prosecutions, over which he has no say.  It boggles the mind how far we’ve come from the framers’ intent which was to give the President the ability to show mercy and heal national wounds.  This President isn’t the first to expand its use to miscreants, but as tens of thousands of requests for clemency go unanswered the friends and family plan grows and metastasizes.  Now he’s telling staff not to worry about whatever questionable actions he requests because they will be pardoned on his way out of the Oval Office.  To discuss this trend is Professor Mark Osler of the University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota, an expert on the topic.

“B” is for Briggs v. Eliott (1954). Briggs v. Elliot was one of five cases, collectively entitled Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County Kansas, et al., argued before the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on Louisiana v. Callais in early May, and it's impossible to understand this 6-3 ruling without having some background knowledge of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and how courts between then and now have interpreted it. Don't get lost in the political rhetoric surrounding this […]

The United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on Louisiana v. Callais in early May, and it's impossible to understand this 6-3 ruling without having some background knowledge of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and how courts between then and now have interpreted it. Don't get lost in the political rhetoric surrounding this case; learn the background for yourself and make up your own mind.Host: Jeff SikkengaExecutive Producer: Jeremy GyptonSubscribe: https://linktr.ee/theamericanideaHomepage: https://ashbrook.org/the-american-idea-podcast/

This Day in Legal History: Black Monday and the End of the NIRAOn May 27, 1935 — a day quickly dubbed “Black Monday” by the press — the United States Supreme Court delivered three unanimous decisions that gutted central pieces of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in a single morning. The most consequential was A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, in which the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act. The case grew out of the prosecution of a Brooklyn kosher poultry slaughterhouse for violating the “Live Poultry Code,” one of the hundreds of industry codes drafted by trade groups and given the force of federal law by the National Recovery Administration. The Court held that the NIRA's code-making scheme was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to private actors and the executive, and that the federal government's Commerce Clause authority did not reach the intrastate sale of poultry to local butchers. Justice Cardozo, concurring, famously described the statute as “delegation running riot.”The same day, in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Court cabined the President's power to remove members of independent regulatory commissions, a holding that would shape the constitutional status of agencies like the FTC, SEC, and FCC for the next ninety years. And in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, the Court invalidated the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act as an uncompensated taking from secured creditors. Roosevelt was, by all accounts, furious — and Black Monday became the proximate cause of his 1937 court-packing plan, which failed in Congress but is generally credited with prompting the “switch in time” that produced the more deferential commerce-clause and administrative-law jurisprudence of Jones & Laughlin Steel and the decades that followed. The nondelegation doctrine the Court announced in Schechter has, famously, not been used to strike down a federal statute since — though it has been the subject of growing interest from the current Court's conservative majority, which makes the ninety-first anniversary of Black Monday more than just a historical footnote.Former President Joe Biden has sued the Department of Justice to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, the prosecutor who investigated Biden's handling of classified documents and declined to bring charges. According to the filing, Biden argues that releasing the recordings would skirt federal law restricting disclosure of materials gathered in a special counsel probe, and would effectively turn protected investigative material into political fodder. The suit follows a 2024 Freedom of Information Act action by the conservative Heritage Foundation seeking the same recordings, and comes against the backdrop of repeated efforts by the current administration to make Hur-era material public — efforts the Biden team has argued are intended to embarrass the former president rather than to serve any legitimate investigative or oversight function. The transcripts of the Hur interviews were released back in 2024, but the audio itself has been the subject of executive privilege fights ever since. Worth watching for what the court does with the privilege claims, and for how the Special Counsel regulations are treated now that there is an ex-president on each side of these disputes.Former President Biden sues DOJ over release of interview audio | ReutersThe Trump administration is asking a California federal judge to throw out an expanded challenge to its sweeping reorganization of the federal workforce, calling the litigation a “litigation safari.” In a Friday motion to dismiss filed in AFGE v. Trump, the administration urged Judge Susan Illston to toss a supplemental complaint that broadened the case to cover, among other things, the downsizing of FEMA and a set of forward-looking workforce planning documents the administration issued last October. The original suit, filed in April 2025 by a coalition including the American Federation of Government Employees, SEIU, and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco, challenged layoffs and reorganizations at more than twenty federal agencies. Judge Illston enjoined the workforce plans last May, but the Supreme Court stayed her injunction in July, and she has since declined to dismiss the case outright.The administration's argument is essentially jurisdictional: that the October planning documents are too tentative to constitute “final agency action,” that there is no specific DHS order behind the FEMA contract lapses the plaintiffs point to, and that individual FEMA terminations must run through the administrative civil-service process rather than land in district court. The “litigation safari” framing — that the plaintiffs are simply “roving the executive branch to explore various employment issues” — is rhetorically catchy but glosses over the more interesting underlying question: how cleanly the Administrative Procedure Act's “final agency action” requirement maps onto a coordinated, rolling, and openly cross-agency reorganization. A ruling on the dismissal motion is expected later this summer.Trump Admin Looks To Ax Expanded Suit Over Staffing Cuts - Law360Billionaire insurance magnate Greg Lindberg was sentenced in the Western District of North Carolina to twelve years in federal prison across two separate criminal cases — eighty-seven months on charges that he tried to bribe the state's insurance commissioner, and 144 months on wire-fraud charges arising from a $2 billion scheme in which prosecutors said he treated the insurance companies he controlled as a personal piggy bank. The sentences will run concurrently. Judge Max Cogburn also entered a preliminary restitution order of $1.6 billion based on a court-appointed special master's recommendation, which Lindberg's defense team described as the largest restitution award in state history.Prosecutors said the scheme harmed more than two hundred thousand victims, most of them elderly annuity holders, at least twenty thousand of whom died before any promised payouts arrived. The bribery case has its own complicated history — Lindberg was first convicted in 2020, had that conviction vacated by the Fourth Circuit in 2022 over faulty jury instructions, and was reconvicted on retrial in 2024. He pleaded guilty to the separate wire-fraud and money-laundering counts in November 2024. Judge Cogburn credited Lindberg's “extraordinary cooperation” with prosecutors and the special master, but also noted, with what reads like real exasperation in the transcript, that Lindberg has continued to file pro se civil lawsuits against the insurance companies he once owned and that the case illustrates how much of our regulatory apparatus can be “bought and sold like sacks of potatoes.” The government had sought roughly fourteen and a half years; Lindberg had asked for four.‘Regretful' Billionaire Gets 12 Years For $2B Fraud, Bribery - Law360The Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a debt buyer suing a consumer must attach to its complaint a non-affidavit writing that actually shows the buyer owns that consumer's debt — not just a generic bill of sale showing that the buyer purchased some bundle of receivables from the original creditor. The case, Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, involved a $671.29 Victoria's Secret credit-card balance that Comenity Bank had sold to Portfolio Recovery in 2018. Portfolio Recovery's complaint attached a bill of sale and an affidavit identifying the last four digits of Wright's account number, and the lower courts found that sufficient under Colorado's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Colorado Supreme Court, in the first opinion authored by recently appointed Justice Susan Blanco, reversed and held the affidavit could not cure a complaint that didn't first satisfy the statute's non-affidavit-writing requirement.The practical consequence is significant: the four largest debt buyers alone filed close to forty thousand cases in Colorado county courts between 2013 and 2015, accounting for around eight percent of the state's county-court civil docket, and many of those complaints have historically relied on exactly the kind of generic bill-of-sale-plus-affidavit packaging the court just rejected. Consumer advocates argue the ruling will help consumers — most of whom never had any relationship with the debt buyer — understand and respond to the suits filed against them; the debt-buying industry will, in the near term, need to retool its pleading practices statewide.Colo. Justices Say Debt Buyer Must Show It Owns The Debt - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In recent days, the very notion of a free, fair, representative democracy has taken some body blows. First, the United States Supreme Court undercutting minorities having any fair shot at representation in Congress, and then second, the Virginia Supreme Court undercutting the express will of the Virginia voters on the redistricting front. So Glenn has decided - between now and the midterms, he's going to interview and highlight as many congressional candidates as he can: candidates who are willing to be democracy warriors, to take the gloves off and to fight for free, fair elections.Kicking this off - Glenn sat down with a great young candidate running for Congress to represent the people of California's 3rd congressional district, Chris Bennett.Find Chris at: https://www.bennettforca.comFind Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In recent days, the very notion of a free, fair, representative democracy has taken some body blows. First, the United States Supreme Court undercutting minorities having any fair shot at representation in Congress, and then second, the Virginia Supreme Court undercutting the express will of the Virginia voters on the redistricting front. So Glenn has decided - between now and the midterms, he's going to interview and highlight as many congressional candidates as he can: candidates who are willing to be democracy warriors, to take the gloves off and to fight for free, fair elections.Kicking this off - Glenn sat down with a great young candidate running for Congress to represent the people of California's 3rd congressional district, Chris Bennett.Find Chris at: https://www.bennettforca.comFind Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of On The Issues, we confront American democracy on fire.  How did we get here and who lit the match? In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the United States Supreme Court gutted a fundamental provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), landmark legislation enacted by Congress at the height of the civil rights movement to eradicate entrenched patterns of voter suppression and promote equality at the ballot box.  With key mandates in the VRA now eviscerated under the hand six justices on the Supreme Court—led by Chief Justice John Roberts--what's next?  The Supreme Court has the lowest approval ratings since confidence in the court has been measured.  Many Americans now wonder whether the Supreme Court can be trusted?  For example, the Supreme Court has emphasized that if women want reproductive freedom and don't like abortion bans, go vote.  What happens when the Court plays a strategic role in diluting voting power and making voting more difficult by stripping away protections? Joining our host Dr. Michele Goodwin in unpacking these issues and more are two very special guests.Stephen I. Vladeck is the Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts and is author of the New York Times-bestselling book, “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic,” which has won numerous awards.   Moira Donegan is writer in residence for the Clayman Institute, and a columnist at The Guardian. Her first book, Gone Too Far: MeToo, Backlash, and the Future of Feminist Politics, is forthcoming from Scribner. Support the show

It's Friday, May 8th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Three North Korean prisoners to receive human rights award Three Korean missionaries detained for more than a decade in North Korea will receive the Graciela Fernandez Meijide Human Rights Award in August in absentia, reports International Christian Concern. The three men — missionary Choi Chun-gil, age 70, missionary Kim Jong-Uk, age 62, and Pastor Kim Kuk-gi, age 72— were helping North Korean defectors and underground churches in Northeast China before North Korean agents arrested them and took them to jails inside North Korea.  North Korea sentenced the three men to life in a North Korean labor camp. The South Korean government has repeatedly called for the missionaries' release. Analysts estimate that more than 30,000 Christians are currently suffering in these camps where they are overworked, starved, and tortured. Not surprisingly, North Korea denies the existence of such camps. According to Open Doors, North Korea is the most oppressive country worldwide for Christians. Vatican: Homosexual couples are not guilty of sin The new Vatican synod report published May 5th has just dropped a bombshell, reports LifeSiteNews.com. It said, “Sin, at its root, does not consist in the same-sex couple relationship.” Instead, the document suggests sin is merely a lack of faith in God. Homosexual relationships are presented by the Vatican through glowing testimonies. The document takes specific aim at Courage, a Catholic group established for the support of those with homosexual attraction who wish to live chastely and in accord with Catholic Church teaching.  And the report openly questions whether such unions could be considered analogous to marriage.  It asks whether homosexual “relationships” can be thought of as equal “to heterosexual conjugal union,” despite “the evident impossibility of procreation.” This is not a fringe document. It comes from a synodal study group operating with Vatican approval. But Leviticus 18:22 could not be more clear. “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” US launches strikes on two Iranian targets On May 7th,  U.S. Central Command confirmed military action within the Strait of Hormuz, saying American forces intercepted “unprovoked Iranian attacks” and struck back amid claims by Tehran that the Trump administration had violated a fragile ceasefire, reports NewsNation.com. According to Fox News, U.S. officials said Qeshm Port in the Strait of Hormuz and the port city of Bandar Abbas were struck. Plus, Iran's Bandar Kargan naval checkpoint in Minab was also hit. CENTCOM officials said Iran launched missiles, drones, and small boats on three U.S. guided-missile destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz headed to the Gulf of Oman. In response, U.S. forces “eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this. RUBIO:  “As President Trump has said, and the facts clearly bear out, the United States of America holds all the cards. There is no scenario here in which, if they decide to join a ladder of escalation, they wind up getting the last say. “But our preference is for these Straits [of Hormuz] to be opened to the way they're supposed to be open, back to the way it was. Anyone can use it. No mines in the water. Nobody paying tolls. That's what we have to get back to, and that's the goal here.” Mark Hamill of “Star Wars” posted image of dead President Trump Mark Hamill, the actor best known for playing Luke Skywalker in the original “Star Wars” trilogy of the 1970s and '80s, posted an image on May 6th that got the White House's attention, reports The Western Journal. The image, posted to Hamill's account on the social media platform BlueSky, showed President Donald Trump lying in a grave, hands folded, with a headstone that read “Donald J. Trump, 1946-2024.” Hamill wrote, “If only he should live long enough to witness his inevitable devastating loss in the midterms, be held accountable for his unprecedented corruption, impeached, convicted & humiliated for his countless crimes. Long enough to realize he'll be disgraced in the history books, forevermore.” Meanwhile, on the social media platform X, the official White House Rapid Response account, called Hamill “one sick individual.” Then, the White House linked Hamill-style rhetoric to other disturbing events, saying, “These Radical Left lunatics just can't help themselves. This kind of rhetoric is exactly what has inspired three assassination attempts in two years against our President.” Texas Governor pressures waterpark to cancel Muslim-only event A planned celebration of a Muslim-only day at the Epic Waters waterpark in Grand Prairie, Texas has been canceled after backlash over religious discrimination, reports Fox4News. The Epic Waters waterpark had planned to hold a private event throughout the park on June 1st to celebrate Eid al-Adha, the feast of sacrifice and the second of two main festivals in Islam. It honors the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as an act of obedience to God's command. When The Worldview first reported the story of the Muslim-only, waterpark-wide event, Cathy Blake of Fate, Texas emailed the Epic Waters leadership. She wrote, “I see you are hosting a Muslim celebration and closing the park to non-Muslims, which is religious discrimination. But, since you probably don't see it that way, and are wanting to be inclusive, I'm wondering what day the park will be available for only Jews or only Christians as those two religions are two of the most practiced religions in America, alongside Islam. Please let me know the date so I can plan my summer accordingly.” When Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott heard about the event, he sent a letter to the City of Grand Prairie in which he threatened to pull $530,000 in public safety grants if the city held the event. The letter states that the event was being advertised as "Muslim Only" before changing its advertisements to state only a requirement of a modest dress code would be enforced. Governor Abbott wrote, "The event purports to be public-facing and discriminatory at the same time: All Muslims—but only Muslims—may attend. An event at a city-owned pool that was publicly and indiscriminately advertised as ‘Whites only' would surely violate the Constitution.” On May 6, officials with the City of Grand Prairie wrote, "After further review and in the best interest of the City of Grand Prairie, the June 1st event at Epic Waters Indoor Waterpark has been canceled." The organizer, Dr. Aminah Knight, noted that 600 people attended the event last year and she was “deeply disappointed.” American Bible Society celebrates its 210th anniversary And finally, on May 8th, 1816, the American Bible Society organized in New York to distribute the Bible worldwide. In 1816, there was a significant demand for Bibles in the United States following the American Revolutionary War.  The importation of Bibles from England had ceased, leading to a shortage as the nation sought to foster religious revival. Since then, it has distributed hundreds of millions of Bibles in thousands of languages worldwide. The first President of the American Bible Society was Elias Boudinot, who had been President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was named the Bible Society president in 1821. And Francis Scott Key, the writer of the United States' national anthem, served as a Vice President from 1817 until his death in 1843. Today, people around the world are longing for the hope and truth found only in Scripture. Consider making a one-time donation today to empower believers with God's Word in their own language. Every $2 you give provides another Bible. The website is www.AmericanBible.org. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, May 8th, in the year of our Lord 2026, my 60th birthday. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The United States Supreme Court in late April issued a sweeping 6-3 ruling in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, effectively gutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

On this episode of CrossPolitic, Gabe welcomes Dr. Richard Eggleston and attorney Todd Richardson from Clarkston, Washington into the studio to talk about the ongoing legal battle over a doctor's First Amendment right to speak freely on COVID-19. They discuss why the Washington Medical Commission's attempt to silence a retired physician for writing opinion columns in a local newspaper has now landed at the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court with NBA Hall of Famer John Stockton as a co-plaintiff and the fundamental right of every American to hear the truth from their doctor hanging in the balance. ABOUT CROSSPOLITIC CrossPolitic exists to put Jesus over Politics and reclaim the public square through bold, joyful, biblically grounded media. We confront the chaos discipling America and build the next generation of Christian media infrastructure. Our mission is simple: all of Christ for all of media for all of America. Mainstream media is collapsing. Eighty-seven percent of journalists identify as progressive, and even many conservative outlets prioritize profit over principle. Meanwhile, billions of hours of digital content are discipling the world every day. CrossPolitic stands in that gap, producing courageous, entertaining, truth-filled media for households, churches, and leaders across the nation. Become a CrossPolitic Club MemberSupport the mission and unlock exclusive content, behind-the-scenes shows, and theology series. https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/menu/checkout Subscribe & Share!Every like, comment, and share helps push Christian media back into the algorithm where it belongs. Join Us at Our Next National ConferenceSign up for Fight Laugh Feast 2026: Holy Wars and lock in Early Bird pricing.https://tickets.flfnetwork.com/holy-wars-conference Follow CrossPolitic YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CROSSPOLITIC X: https://x.com/CrossPolitic Facebook: https://facebook.com/crosspolitic Instagram: https://instagram.com/crosspolitic Join our Email List: https://crosspolitic.com/ Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NRBTV, DirecTV, Dish, and everywhere podcasts are found.

On this episode of CrossPolitic, Gabe welcomes Dr. Richard Eggleston and attorney Todd Richardson from Clarkston, Washington into the studio to talk about the ongoing legal battle over a doctor's First Amendment right to speak freely on COVID-19. They discuss why the Washington Medical Commission's attempt to silence a retired physician for writing opinion columns in a local newspaper has now landed at the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court with NBA Hall of Famer John Stockton as a co-plaintiff and the fundamental right of every American to hear the truth from their doctor hanging in the balance. ABOUT CROSSPOLITIC CrossPolitic exists to put Jesus over Politics and reclaim the public square through bold, joyful, biblically grounded media. We confront the chaos discipling America and build the next generation of Christian media infrastructure. Our mission is simple: all of Christ for all of media for all of America. Mainstream media is collapsing. Eighty-seven percent of journalists identify as progressive, and even many conservative outlets prioritize profit over principle. Meanwhile, billions of hours of digital content are discipling the world every day. CrossPolitic stands in that gap, producing courageous, entertaining, truth-filled media for households, churches, and leaders across the nation. Become a CrossPolitic Club MemberSupport the mission and unlock exclusive content, behind-the-scenes shows, and theology series. https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/menu/checkout Subscribe & Share!Every like, comment, and share helps push Christian media back into the algorithm where it belongs. Join Us at Our Next National ConferenceSign up for Fight Laugh Feast 2026: Holy Wars and lock in Early Bird pricing.https://tickets.flfnetwork.com/holy-wars-conference Follow CrossPolitic YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CROSSPOLITIC X: https://x.com/CrossPolitic Facebook: https://facebook.com/crosspolitic Instagram: https://instagram.com/crosspolitic Join our Email List: https://crosspolitic.com/ Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NRBTV, DirecTV, Dish, and everywhere podcasts are found.

The award winning Legal AF pod, helmed by Ben and Popok, breaks down the breaking legal and political news coming out of DC, Delaware, California, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and the United States Supreme Court. Support our Sponsors: Qualia: Go to QualiaLife.com/legalaf for up to 50% OFF! HoneyLove : Save 20% Off Honeylove by going to https://honeylove.com/LEGALAF! #honeylovepod Cheers: Get 20% OFF your order by using code: LEGALAF at https://CheersHealth.com Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 60% off your first order PLUS free shipping! Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Learn more about the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/subscribe?coupon=c0fc8f5c Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Could Tim Cook or Mark Zuckerberg buy the Seahawks? Trump says he’s not pleased with Iran’s latest proposal. Guest: Attorney Jennifer Kennedy is representing eight Snohomish County fire fighters who are taking their fight over their refusal to get the COVID vaccine to the United States Supreme Court. // Big Local: The Northgate and Shoreline light rail stations are going to start requiring paid parking permits. Spokane leaders could see pay raises even as the city’s debt deepens. // Fridays with Jake Skorheim on the absurd spending on youth sports. 

Experts explain why the price of gas is on the rise. Plus, the recent United States Supreme Court decision is already upending elections. Louisiana is now putting House races on hold one day after the Supreme Court invalidated the state's congressional maps.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the latest, probably lethal blow in the Supreme Court's decades-long campaign against multi-racial democracy in America, with a 6-3 majority opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais. In this special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law organization. Nelson argued Louisiana v. Callais before the United States Supreme Court in October of 2025. Together, they examine the history ignored by the right wing majority, and look ahead to the disastrous consequences this ruling unleashes on American democracy, from school boards all the way to the halls of congress.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the latest, probably lethal blow in the Supreme Court's decades-long campaign against multi-racial democracy in America, with a 6-3 majority opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais. In this special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law organization. Nelson argued Louisiana v. Callais before the United States Supreme Court in October of 2025. Together, they examine the history ignored by the right wing majority, and look ahead to the disastrous consequences this ruling unleashes on American democracy, from school boards all the way to the halls of congress.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court just released their ruling on this case today, Wednesday April 29th. It's deeply upsetting, but unfortunately, not that surprising. Red Wine & Blue will be getting together for a virtual event soon to be together and talk about next steps. Stay tuned!When we wanted to talk about the latest Supreme Court case that could completely gut voting rights, we went straight to the expert. This week, we're sharing the audio of our recent event with Janai Nelson, the hard-hitting NAACP lawyer who argued Louisiana vs Callais at the Supreme Court. Janai and Katie's conversation covered all of the basics of what's happening (simplified so we can all understand it!), what it was like to present a case to the full-on United States Supreme Court, and what gives her hope.For a transcript of this episode, please email comms@redwine.blue. You can learn more about us at www.redwine.blue or follow us on social media! Instagram: @RedWineBlueUSAFacebook: @RedWineBlueUSAYouTube: @RedWineBlueUSA

On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the latest, probably lethal blow in the Supreme Court's decades-long campaign against multi-racial democracy in America, with a 6-3 majority opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais. In this special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law organization. Nelson argued Louisiana v. Callais before the United States Supreme Court in October of 2025. Together, they examine the history ignored by the right wing majority, and look ahead to the disastrous consequences this ruling unleashes on American democracy, from school boards all the way to the halls of congress.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Will there be a Supreme Court vacancy this summer? What should conservatives look for in potential nominees? // Big Local: Snohomish firefighters are taking their fight over the COVID vaccine to the United States Supreme Court. The Snohomish City Council has approved a Pride Parade despite pushback from some of the community. // You Pick the Topic: Tucker Carlson says he regrets his support for Trump.

The teacher at Glacier Peak High School that exposed students to nude images has resigned. New documents reveal the ulterior motive behind the ‘millionaire’s tax.’ Ted Cruz thinks Democrats will try another shutdown right before the midterms. // Big Local: Sea-Tac travelers are feeling the pinch from high jet fuel prices. Lynnwood has ended its ban on retail cannabis shops. The Snohomish firefighters that refused the COVID vaccine are taking their case to the United States Supreme Court. // President Trump announced an extension to the ceasefire with Iran.  

In 1945, a reverend, a realtor, a science teacher, and a white woman in a low-cut dress conspired to help a St. Louis couple buy a house. The couple had steady jobs, a down payment, and six children who needed a safe home. What they didn't have was permission — at least not according to a clause buried in the property's deed. Their attempt to move in triggered outrage from neighbors, a lawsuit, and a legal battle that climbed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, resulting in the landmark 1948 ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer.Crimes of the Centuries is a podcast from Grab Bag Collab exploring forgotten crimes from times past that made a mark and helped change history. You can get early and ad-free episodes and more over at www.grabbagcollab.comOrder the Crimes of the Centuries book at your favorite bookstore or at www.centuriespod.com/book!Follow us on Instagram and other social media: @centuriespod