Podcasts about united states supreme court

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

This Day in Legal History: Abe Fortas Resigns SCOTUSOn May 15, 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first justice to leave the Court under the threat of impeachment. Fortas had been appointed to the Court in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a close friend and political ally. His reputation had already been damaged in 1968, when Johnson tried to elevate him to Chief Justice and the nomination failed after senators criticized his outside income and ties to the president. The controversy deepened when it became public that Fortas had accepted a financial arrangement from the family foundation of Louis Wolfson, a financier who was later convicted of securities violations. Although Fortas returned the money, the arrangement created the appearance that a sitting Supreme Court justice might be financially entangled with someone who had legal troubles. That appearance alone was enough to cause a major crisis for the Court's legitimacy.Members of Congress began discussing impeachment, and Fortas ultimately resigned before a formal impeachment process could remove him. His departure became an important example of how judicial ethics are not limited to actual corruption, but also include conduct that undermines public confidence in judicial independence. The episode also showed the tension between life tenure and accountability for federal judges. Article III judges are protected from political pressure through lifetime appointments, but they can still face removal through impeachment for serious misconduct.Fortas's resignation left a lasting mark on debates over Supreme Court ethics, outside income, recusals, and financial disclosure. More than fifty years later, the Fortas controversy is still cited when questions arise about whether Supreme Court justices should follow clearer and more enforceable ethics rules.Closing arguments ended Thursday in Elon Musk's federal trial against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft, with the case now headed to a nine-member jury. Musk's lawyer argued that OpenAI violated its charitable mission by shifting assets, employees, and value from its nonprofit structure into a for-profit enterprise now worth hundreds of billions of dollars. He focused heavily on Altman's credibility, telling jurors that OpenAI's defense depends on believing Altman and pointing to testimony and documents that Musk says show dishonesty, conflicts, and self-enrichment. Musk's side also attacked Brockman's large equity stake and cited old journal entries as evidence that OpenAI insiders were thinking about personal wealth while controlling a nonprofit mission. Microsoft was portrayed by Musk's team as helping the alleged breach by investing billions and gaining major access to OpenAI's intellectual property and business structure. OpenAI's lawyers responded that Musk's claims are late, unsupported, and driven by his status as a competitor rather than by concern for charitable law. They argued Musk's donations were not legally restricted gifts, that he once sought control of OpenAI himself, and that he did not object to earlier restructuring documents. OpenAI also emphasized that the nonprofit remains in control and now holds a stake worth roughly $200 billion, which its lawyers described as enormous value created for the charity, not stolen from it. Microsoft's lawyer argued the company did not know of any specific conditions on Musk's donations and was not involved in the core events Musk complains about. In rebuttal, Musk's lawyer said OpenAI and Microsoft were distracting the jury from documents and texts showing that Musk funded OpenAI based on a specific nonprofit safety mission. The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations Monday.‘Who's Telling The Truth?' Musk-OpenAI Fight Goes To Jury - Law360 UKMusk accused of ‘selective amnesia,' Altman of lying as OpenAI trial nears end | ReutersThe Senate Banking Committee advanced the Clarity Act, a major crypto regulation bill that would set clearer rules for digital assets and define which regulators oversee different parts of the industry. The Republican-led committee approved the bill with support from all Republicans and two Democrats, Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, giving the measure a better chance of reaching the full Senate. Even so, both Democrats warned they may not support the final version unless negotiations change. The bill is important to the crypto industry because it would help determine when tokens are treated as securities, commodities, or something else, which companies say is necessary for growth and legal certainty. Several Democrats objected that the proposal does not go far enough on anti-money laundering protections and should do more to stop public officials from profiting from crypto ventures. Banks are also fighting part of the bill because they fear crypto companies could use stablecoin rewards to compete with traditional deposits. The dispute led to tense committee negotiations, including a late compromise that Chairman Tim Scott allowed while rejecting some other Democratic amendments. Crypto groups have pushed hard for the legislation after spending heavily to support pro-crypto candidates in 2024. The White House is also backing crypto reform, and the House already passed its version of the Clarity Act last year. Supporters see the committee vote as a milestone after years of work, while critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, warn the bill favors the crypto industry at the expense of consumers, investors, national security, and the financial system. The bill now moves to the full Senate, where lobbying from crypto companies, banks, and consumer-protection advocates is likely to intensify.US Senate committee advances crypto bill in milestone for digital assets | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments over the Trump administration's attempt to revive executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. The firms had previously won in lower court, where judges found the orders unconstitutional. The executive orders punished the firms over issues including their legal work, hiring practices, diversity policies, and political connections. They also sought to restrict the firms' lawyers from federal buildings, cancel government contracts held by their clients, and remove security clearances from firm employees. The Justice Department argued that the firms' business relationships and hiring decisions are not protected by the First Amendment, and that courts should not second-guess presidential decisions involving national security. Judges on the D.C. Circuit appeared skeptical of the administration's broad view of presidential authority, especially the claim that security clearance decisions are unreviewable even when allegedly made for improper reasons. Paul Clement, arguing for the firms, said the orders threatened the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to represent unpopular clients without government retaliation. He warned that accepting the administration's theory could allow presidents to punish lawyers or firms based on political affiliation. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, seemed more receptive to the administration's argument that courts have limited power to review security clearance decisions. The case is part of a broader fight over presidential power and whether the government can use executive authority to punish lawyers and firms viewed as political opponents. The appeals court also heard a related case involving lawyer Mark Zaid's security clearance. Any ruling from the D.C. Circuit could eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.US appeals court questions Trump's push to punish major law firms | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In 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.

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for May 7, 2026. We open with the Tennessee redistricting spectacle — Republican lawmakers passed new congressional maps designed to create a 9-0 Republican advantage in the state's U.S. House delegation, and Democrats responded by standing on desks, blowing air horns, unfurling banners reading No Jim Crow 2.0, and getting escorted out of the building by state police. We call it what it is — not courage, not resistance, but buffoonery — and explain why the modern left has developed a habit of treating every democratic outcome they dislike as a moral emergency requiring theatrical protest rather than an actual argument. We also make the point that redistricting fights are ugly and both parties do it, but only one party responds to losing a vote by having members physically removed from the chamber. In our Top 3 Things You Need to Know, Tennessee officially adopted its new congressional maps on party line votes — expected to flip Memphis from Democrat to Republican. Then a federal judge ruled the FBI can keep the ballots and evidence seized from Fulton County, Georgia related to the 2020 election — rejecting the county's argument that the FBI had no business looking — while noting the bureau has identified irregularities but hasn't yet determined whether they were human error or intentional. And in the Los Angeles mayoral debate, Republican Spencer Pratt — whose home was destroyed in the Palisades fire — was declared the winner by 89% of viewers in an NBC post-debate poll, with 23% saying the debate changed their minds about who they're voting for. We ask how anyone is still considering voting for Karen Bass. We also play a Harry Enten clip from CNN — not Fox News, CNN — where the network's own senior data reporter dismantles the narrative that Trump is losing Republican support. Enten points out that Trump's approval among Republicans right now is 84%, nearly identical to his 85% approval at the same point in the 2018 midterm cycle. MAGA is not dead. The media just wants you to think it is. We note, however, that Republicans still lost the House in 2018 despite 85% Republican approval — so high base support doesn't automatically translate to midterm wins. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson tackle the question of why American cities aren't as beautiful as they used to be — and why you see people traveling to Europe for the architecture that America stopped building generations ago. We talk about the difference between buildings designed to last forever and boxes designed to last 30 years, why Fort Worth went from a city nobody visited to a booming destination because one family decided to pour private money into it, why the left's instinct to tax the wealthy destroys the very engine that beautifies cities, and why good leadership and private investment — not government programs — are what make cities worth living in. In our Digging Deep segment, we spotted a pattern across three news stories from three different Democrat-run states. In Boston, 26% of young adults aged 20 to 30 say they could leave within five years — with 46% of those drawn to red states in the South and Southwest. In Washington State, 24% of businesses are considering moving out of state, with 72% citing the overall tax burden as their top challenge. And in Chicago, violent retail crime is up 7% — with one in eight retail crimes now involving a weapon or physical threat. We connect all three stories to the same root cause — when the people you elect don't understand the purpose of government, you end up with high taxes, high costs of living, and high crime, every single time. And the people who suffer most are the poor and elderly who can't afford to leave. We also cover the federal government's lawsuit against the New York Times — filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of an anonymous white male employee who says the Times has been systematically discriminating in hiring and promotions based on race and sex since at least 2017. The evidence? The Times's own annual Diversity and Inclusion Reports, which the complaint says brag about giving preferential treatment to people of color and women. We make the simple point — if you are giving preferential treatment to people of one skin color, you are by definition discriminating against people of another skin color. That is racism. And the federal government is finally saying so. We also cover Secretary of State Marco Rubio's meeting with the Pope at the Vatican — reportedly to smooth over relations between the Holy See and President Trump, as well as to discuss the persecution of Christians in Africa. We briefly explore whether married men can become Catholic priests, which leads us somewhere we probably didn't need to go. Father Rubio has declined to comment. And we close with a milestone — Justice Clarence Thomas has officially become the second longest-serving justice in the history of the United States Supreme Court, surpassing John Paul Stevens, and is now just two years away from passing William Douglas to become the longest-serving justice in American history. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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 Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965, and considered to be the most important civil rights legislation in American history, was effectively jettisoned by the ruling of the United States Supreme Court last week, according to our guest, David Daley, one of the leading experts in the country on the Act itself, and partisan and racial gerrymandering. The majority opinion in the case was written by Justice Samuel Alito and while he calls it an updating of the statute, others like Professor of law Richard Hasan, an elections law expert, begged to differ calling it an “earthquake” decision which sharply erodes the Voting Rights Act.  With Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act already scrapped years back by the Roberts Court, and on the heels of the Louisiana vs. Callais decision last week, one is left to wonder what is left of protections for Black citizens across the South to ensure that their voices will count.  I have had the privilege of interviewing Mr. Daley several times in the past.  Never have I heard his words as impassioned and compelling as those he brings to this podcast.  You will walk away with history surrounding this vitally important legislation, the immediate real- world impacts of this decision, and what the road ahead looks like for gerrymandering and voting rights.  He is the author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count” and “Antidemocratic,” his latest book.

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 this Salcedo Storm Podcast:Dr. John Eastman is Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He's a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute. From 1996 to 1997 he served as a law clerk with the Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas in the United States Supreme Court.

It's Thursday, and that means it's time to catch up on politics with The Times-Picayune/The Advocate's editorial director and columnist, Stephanie Grace. She breaks down the constitutional amendments Louisiana voters will soon weigh in on, including a new school district in St. George, permanent teacher raises and changing the retirement age for judges.The United States Supreme Court has invalidated Louisiana's election map that created a second, majority-Black district. The ruling comes just days before statewide primary elections for the U.S. House, and early voting has already begun.  Mark Ballard, reporter for the Times Picayune/The Advocate, breaks down the decision and how this weakens the Voting Rights Act.New Orleans singer Robin Barnes is gearing up for a big weekend. She's releasing a new album on Friday and closing down Jazz Fest on Sunday.  The songbird of New Orleans joins us for more on her upcoming performance. —Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Alana Schreiber. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber. Matt Bloom and Aubry Procell are assistant producers. Our engineer is Garrett Pittman.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, Google Play and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you! Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for April 29, 2026. We open with a landmark day at the United States Supreme Court — two massive decisions that will reshape elections, redistricting, and the fight for life in America for decades to come. We dig deep into the Callais decision, which effectively ends the use of race as a primary basis for drawing congressional districts, overturning decades of lower court precedent that the majority says forced states to engage in the very racial discrimination the Constitution forbids. We walk through Justice Alito's majority opinion line by line, explain what Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act actually says versus how it has been misapplied, cover Justice Thomas's concurring opinion noting that redistricting was never in the Voting Rights Act to begin with, and ask the question Barack Obama apparently hasn't considered — if racial gerrymandering is the only way black candidates can win, how did you get elected president? We also cover the Supreme Court's ruling protecting crisis pregnancy centers in New Jersey from a politically motivated fishing expedition by the state's attorney general, who demanded 10 years of donor records from a clinic that had committed no crime — simply because it doesn't perform abortions and actively counsels women on alternatives. The Court said that's not an investigation. That's political retribution designed to silence free speech through fear of association. In our Top 3 Three Things You Need to Know, North Carolina has identified 34,000 dead people still on its voter rolls through a routine data cross-check — a number state officials say was far higher than expected. We talk about why this isn't unique to North Carolina, why 17 blue states are currently refusing to cooperate with federal voter roll verification efforts, and why every illegal vote cast in the name of a dead person is an act of voter suppression against a living one. Then the Supreme Court strikes down racial gerrymandering in a ruling that could eventually reshape dozens of congressional districts across the country. And the United Arab Emirates — the target of more than 2,800 Iranian missile and drone attacks in the past month — announced it is leaving OPEC, potentially beginning the unraveling of the entire organization that Iran helped found. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson tackle a question that applies to Apple, private schools, churches, and businesses of every kind — why do organizations so often decline or collapse after losing their founders? We talk about Steve Jobs and what happened to Apple in the 1990s without him, a private school in Arlington, Texas that had a waiting list and is now closing its doors after pushing out its visionary founder, and why jealousy among the people closest to the founder is almost always at the root of it. The lights of the party are gone. And it goes dark. We dig deep into the redistricting earthquake — walking through exactly what the Supreme Court's ruling means for Louisiana, which had been forced by a lower court to draw a 250-mile-long, two-mile-wide district linking black neighborhoods from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. Louisiana will have to redraw its maps for the third time since 2020. We also connect the ruling to Representative Cleo Fields' press conference response, correct the historical record about Louisiana's voting history, and point out the uncomfortable truth that it was the Democrat Party — not the Republican Party — that wrote and enforced the poll taxes, literacy tests, and property requirements that Fields invoked to condemn today's decision. We also cover the April Gallup survey showing that high cost of living remains the number one financial concern for Americans, with 55% saying their financial situation is worsening — and we put that in context against the continuing inflation baked in from Biden-era spending that is still working its way through the economy. For our Bright Spot, the U.S. Geological Survey has discovered 2.3 million metric tons of economically recoverable lithium in the Appalachian region — enough to manufacture 130 million electric vehicles, 180 billion laptops, or 500 billion cell phones, and enough to replace 328 years of lithium imports. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum calls it reclaiming America's mineral independence. We call it one of the most significant resource discoveries on American soil in a generation — even if most of it sits under blue states that have spent decades fighting mining. We also cover Rosie O'Donnell claiming the White House Correspondents' Dinner assassination attempt was staged — including apparently Butler, Pennsylvania — and respond accordingly. And we close with King Charles presenting President Trump with the bell of the HMS Trump, a British submarine that sank six Japanese ships during World War II, with the message — should you ever need to get a hold of us, just give us a ring. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

© Clay Jones – https://claytoonz.substack.com On our political radar this week… Donald Trump, possessor of the self-proclaimed “Big Brain,” seems to have fully embraced a bunker mentality: his ever-shifting Iran strategy manages neither to sway Tehran nor steady the global economy, but it does keep everyone guessing. Meanwhile, he's tied up in court trying to build an actual bunker—allegedly tucked beneath his $400 million gold-plated ballroom—because nothing says “strong leadership” like preparing to retreat in style. Michigan Democrats attracted a record-setting 7,200-plus delegates to their endorsement convention … along with potential presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Corey Booker and Andy Beshear (as well as home field potential candidates Elissa Slotkin and Gretchen Whitmer). Much to the consternation of party leaders, a sizable contingent of young progressives heckled and booed some of the on-stage candidates … a demonstration that brought quick condemnation from state party chair Curtis Hertel on the party's weekly podcast. Trump's polling numbers continue to plummet. The latest AP-NORC poll has his approval rating a massive 40 points under water: 30% approval, 70% disapproval.  The worst cabinet in generations is getting a huge shakeup with the firing of three of the most incompetent – all of them women. Who's next? Oh, so many bozos from which to choose. Bar-room buddies Hegseth and/or Patel? Bessent? Brainworm Bobby?  Virginia voters narrowly approve a congressional gerrymander that could flip four seats to the benefit of Democrats while Florida struggles to enact what could be the final chapter of the Trump-led gerrymandering quagmire. When it's all said and done, the GOP plan to reinforce its U.S. House majority may well backfire.  Michigan's top officials agree: the latest Trump-branded election conspiracy tour deserves a hard pass. This comes as federal officials are demanding full access to Wayne County's 2024 ballots, apparently treating election records like a clearance rack for future grievances.  The whole exercise doubles as a rehearsal dinner for the GOP's next claim that 2024 was “rigged,” a storyline notably unsupported by facts but eagerly workshopped by two-time election loser John James, who is still auditioning his 2020 script blaming Secretary of State Benson—a plotline first piloted by Mike Rogers and apparently too good (or too baseless) to retire.  Perry Johnson has taken a page out of the Donald Trump playbook, filing an absolutely absurd lawsuit to get some attention. His target: John James, over a campaign flyer which he claims implies James is already Governor of Michigan. By the way, the latest poll from EPIC-MRA shows that our actual Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, has nearly 100% name identification.  The GOP gubernatorial field is down by one. Former state House Speaker Tom Leonard, who was polling in single digits, has dropped out of the race 2 days after filing his nominating petitions. The man who led Trump Airlines into bankruptcy is brokering a deal for the federal government to take partial ownership of the equally prestigious Spirit Airlines … at a cost of a half-billion dollars. Democrats are focusing on gas prices as they challenge Republicans running for reelection to Congress. One target in Michigan: Lansing area Congressman Tom Barrett, who used the price of gas to flip the mid-Michigan district in 2024. He promised back then to get gas prices under control. Meanwhile, a new report from the non-partisan Anderson Economic Group says the ongoing high price of gas is costing a typical family $100 a month. Former Michigan Democratic and Republican party officials are teaming up in an effort to eliminate candidate nominating conventions for top state offices, arguing the practice disenfranchises voters.. The effort is led by former Michigan Democratic Party chair Lon Johnson, and former Republican Executive Director of the Michigan Republican Party Jason Roe. Mark is a former Michigan Democratic Party chair, and Jeff is a former Michigan GOP Executive Director. They offer their perspective on the idea. The battle lines are drawn in Michigan for the November elections as candidates near and far file their petitions, and the state's Democrats give preliminary approval to their candidates for most statewide offices in an often raucous convention. Joining the podcast this week: the Democrats' choice for Attorney General, Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Eli Savit. A native of Ann Arbor, Savit attended Kalamazoo College in western Michigan, where he played four years of college basketball. Following his college graduation, he worked as a public school teacher—teaching both special-education and general-education 8th-grade U.S. history. After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School, Eli worked for two federal judges. He was then selected to clerk on the United States Supreme Court for Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Prior to his election as Washtenaw County prosecutor in 2020, he served as senior legal counsel for the city of Detroit. As prosecutor, Eli has established dedicated special-victims and domestic violence units, led the successful investigation and prosecution of multiple “cold-case” rape cases, launched multiple successful programs that allow people dealing with behavioral health and substance-use issues to obtain rehabilitative services— while avoiding a criminal conviction, and established Washtenaw County's first-ever conviction integrity and expungement unit, which remedies wrongful convictions and provides legally eligible residents free assistance in clearing old criminal records. Thank you for your attention to this matter. © Clay Jones – https://claytoonz.substack.com

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

Send us Fan MailEpisode 442 — Bob Dole: The Life That Brought Him There (Part 23)The Senate (F): The United States Supreme Court FightsIn Episode 442 of our continuing series on the life and career of Bob Dole, we examine one of the most contentious and consequential arenas of the United States Senate — the confirmation battles over the Supreme Court.This episode traces the evolution of those fights across the Dole era, beginning just before he entered the Senate with the failed nomination of Abe Fortas — a turning point that signaled a new level of scrutiny and political conflict in the confirmation process.From there, we move through a series of increasingly high-stakes battles:• The nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell • The explosive and precedent-setting fight over Robert Bork • And the deeply divisive confirmation of Clarence ThomasCentral to this story — and featured throughout the episode — is Strom Thurmond, a dominant figure on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a key player in shaping the outcomes and tone of these battles.Together, these confirmation fights transformed the Senate's constitutional role of “advice and consent,” turning what had often been a more restrained process into one of the most visible and politically charged responsibilities of the chamber.In this episode, we explore:• How and why confirmation battles became more contentious • The growing role of ideology, media, and public pressure • The strategies used by both supporters and opponents of nominees • The long-term impact on judicial confirmations at every levelThis is the story of how Supreme Court nominations became political battlegrounds — and how the Senate was changed in the process.From Fortas to Thomas… a transformation of power, process, and precedent. Questions or comments at  , Randalrgw1@aol.com ,  https://twitter.com/randal_wallace   , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

What is the role of state courts in guaranteeing free and fair elections? Are federal courts better equipped to handle novel attacks on the integrity of elections than state courts? What role has the United States Supreme Court played in setting election rules and resolving election disputes? On Season 7, Episode 6 of the ELB Podcast, we speak with Lori Ringhand, Miriam Seifter, and Steve Vladeck.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen this early on a crisp April morning in 2026, but here I am, coffee in hand, scrolling through the latest legal fireworks swirling around President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on April 1st, the Supreme Court chambers in Washington, D.C., echoed with oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a blockbuster case challenging Executive Order 14160. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of the year, as it questions whether Trump's order redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act holds water. Picture this: the justices grilling lawyers over who qualifies as a U.S. citizen by birth, with Trump's team arguing it bolsters national security while opponents cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rutgers Law highlights how this could reshape immigration law overnight, sending shockwaves through families across America.But that's not all keeping me up at night. Fast-forward to April 7th, and G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup drops a bombshell from the White House. They're defending Trump amid Middle East tensions, stating outright that "the US President, Donald Trump was making the entire region safer." It's tied to broader foreign policy moves, like Syria's new Investment Arbitration Centre in Damascus, launched post-Assad to lure investors—moves Trump champions as stabilizing the chaos. Guernica 37's weekly updates from the International Criminal Court and European Court of Human Rights paint a picture of global legal chess, with Trump's administration pushing back hard.Shifting gears to the courts back home, the Southern District of New York is heating up with a wild twist on sanctions. The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued then revoked a license for legal fees to defend former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearms charges after a dramatic U.S. Army rendition via Operation Southern Spear. Maduro's lawyers are firing back, claiming it guts their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes that make you wonder if similar sanction snags could ever loop in U.S. political heavyweights like Trump.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's fall 2025 arguments in Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States linger like a storm cloud, potentially curbing judges' power on compassionate releases for prisoners. Rutgers Law notes this could trap countless inmates in "extraordinary and compelling" limbo, a reform battle Trump-era policies have fueled.As the sun rises here on April 15th, these threads weave a tapestry of power, borders, and justice that's anything but sleepy. From the Supreme Court's marble halls to Damascus streets, Trump's legal orbit keeps the world spinning.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the Trump v. Barbara case, which deals with the principle of birthright citizenship.

It's Thursday, April 2nd, 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 Jonathan Clark Nepalese Hindus dragged 3 Christians to police station for evangelism Three Christians in Nepal, the country north of India, are facing persecution for simply sharing the Gospel last week. A group of Hindus dragged the Christians to a police station in response to their evangelism. It is illegal to convert someone to another religion in the country. And Hindus increasingly target Christians who share their faith.  One local believer told International Christian Concern, “In spite of the absence of any substantiated evidence, the police ordered an investigation. These actions make life difficult for these poor Christians.” Presidential elections in Peru, Colombia, and Brazil Millions of Latin Americans will vote in presidential elections this year in countries like Peru, Colombia, and Brazil.  A survey from Pew Research found most adults in these countries see a role for religion in key aspects of public life. Protestants are a growing minority in Latin America. They express the strongest support for Christianity's influence on their country's leadership. Even a sizable minority of the religiously unaffiliated in the region said the Bible should influence their country's laws.  Wisdom says in Proverbs 8:15, “By me, kings reign, and rulers decree justice.” Supreme Court: Christian therapists allowed to help “homosexual” kids On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court struck down Colorado's ban on so-called “conversion therapy” The court ruled 8-1 that the ban violated the First Amendment rights of Christian therapist Kaley Chiles. Colorado passed the Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019. The measure prohibited therapists from using faith-based counseling to help kids who no longer want to identify with sexually perverted lifestyles.  Listen to comments from Kaley in an interview with Fox News. CHILES: “I am elated by the ruling, and I am very excited for the kids and their families, who have been simply seeking options in counseling, and now will get to do so. “I also hope this ruling emboldens counselors because we will either do justice to our clients or we will let the government silence us into pretending that there is medical consensus on this issue.” Kansas prohibits cities from forcing pro-life centers to promote abortion The state of Kansas enacted a law to protect pro-life pregnancy centers last Friday.  The Pregnancy Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act forbids state and local governments from forcing pregnancy centers to promote or participate in abortions.   While Democrat Governor Laura Kelly initially vetoed the measure, the state's legislature thankfully voted to override the veto -- within hours.  To their credit, the Republican-controlled House voted 87-35 and the Republican-controlled Senate voted 30-9 to override the pro-abortion governor. More Americans struggling economically A new survey from Gallup found that 49% of U.S. workers report they are struggling in their lives compared to 46% who report they are thriving.  Between 2009 and 2019, nearly 60% of Americans said they were thriving. Most U.S. workers say it is a bad time to find a quality job. This was especially true for workers with a college degree or above.  A majority of workers also said they were actively looking for a new job. This was especially true of younger generations.  Barna: 40% of Protestant pastors see higher engagement from Gen Z A new survey from the Barna Group found that younger generations are becoming more engaged with their church. The study asked over 500 Protestant senior pastors about church engagement over the last year. Over 40 percent of pastors reported higher engagement from Generation Z who are 14 to 29, and Millennials, who are 30 to 45.  A similar number reported higher engagement from young men.  The study noted, “The story of the next generation and the church is still unfolding. But according to pastors across the country, signs of new engagement are beginning to appear.” Samuel Morse, Christian inventor of Morse Code, died on this date And finally, today is the anniversary of the death of Samuel Morse.  Does that last name ring a bell? The American inventor died on April 2, 1872. Before becoming an inventor, Morse was known as a painter, even gaining admittance to the British Royal Academy of Arts.  Later in life, he would make key contributions to the design and deployment of the telegraph system. He also co-developed the code that bears his name. Morse code would become the primary language for telegraphy and is still used to this day.  Notably, Morse was a devout Christian who gave glory to God for his inventions. Psalm 115:1 says, “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to Your name give glory, for the sake of Your steadfast love and Your faithfulness!”  Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, April 2nd, in the year of our Lord 2026. 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.

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for April 1, 2026. It might be April Fool's Day, but there’s nothing funny about what’s unfolding at the United States Supreme Court. We dive straight into one of the biggest constitutional questions in decades as the Court hears arguments over birthright citizenship tied to an executive order from Donald Trump. What does the 14th Amendment actually say—and has it been misunderstood for more than a century? We also break down the top stories you need to know, including President Trump making history by attending Supreme Court oral arguments, a Republican plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security without Democrat support, and NASA’s Artemis II mission preparing to send astronauts around the moon for the first time since the Apollo era. These stories highlight major moments in law, leadership, and America’s continued push forward. Later in the show, we shift to a broader global conversation as tensions with Iran continue to rise. We walk through what may be behind a potential presidential address, the strategic importance of global shipping lanes, and what a stronger stance from the U.S. could signal to both allies and adversaries around the world. In our Digging Deep segment, we take a closer look at the constitutional language behind birthright citizenship, including the long-standing precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Is citizenship simply about being born on U.S. soil, or does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean something more? We explore the history, the legal arguments, and what’s really at stake if the Court reconsiders this interpretation. We also take on some major cultural conversations—from double standards in sports, comparing reactions to Jaden Ivey and LeBron James, to a growing trend of people cutting off family members over political disagreements. It’s a deeper discussion about values, accountability, and how culture continues to shift in real time. We wrap things up with a couple of lighter—but meaningful—moments, including a look at declining traffic fatalities across the country and what’s actually making roads safer, plus a heartwarming story that reminds us how simple acts of kindness can still make a big impact. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776! Trump makes history at Supreme Court amid landmark birthright citizenship challenge Trump-Backed DHS Plan Takes Step Forward In Bid To Sidestep Democrats Artemis II launches into orbit as NASA begins historic moon mission ALEC: State regulations drive up electricity pricesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Barry Markson joined Bruce & Ian Schwartz and explained why the United States Supreme Court is considering the legality of President Trump's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.

Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 282 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Polytoph case, gun rights, New Jersey gun law, firearms purchaser identification card, second amendment, public health, safety, welfare, Bruen decision, essential character of temperament, weasel clause, gun denial, federal case law, voluntary registration, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Robert Bell, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen  00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen  00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen  00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer with a very exciting show today, because we are going to learn about Pearl Harbor. No, it’s all about a different issue. What we are learning about, though, is a great case that just came down from the Appellate Division that my firm was fighting for our client here. It is a really amazing case that is a published decision, and this is very important to understand. In New Jersey, when a decision is deemed published, it means it is law. It acts as law. And the great attorney who argued this case for the firm, and did, in fact, do the appeal as well, is Robert Bell. Rob, welcome to Gun Lawyer. Robert Bell  01:23 Thank you. Great to be here. Evan Nappen  01:25 All right, man. So, we’re all very excited about the (Mikhail) Polatov case, and that’s why we’re saying that the “Court Tossed a Polatov Cocktail on New Jersey Gun Law”. Because this case, which is a great win, actually had some very, very important impacts on our gun rights and in future fights in the courts over gun laws. Why don’t you tell us about this case, Rob, and where we’re at and what’s happened. Go right ahead. Robert Bell  02:03 Certainly. So, Mikhail’s journey in trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights started back in 2020. He applied for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and was denied. Not on the basis of any convictions, restraining orders, substance abuse, or anything like that. Nothing objective. Just a 2011 misdemeanor charge that was dismissed and something back in 2002. So, it’s all very remote, and neither of them resulted in convictions, anyway. He gets denied, and he appeals it. He gets in front of our favorite Bergen County judge. I don’t need to say his name, but you can look into the record and find it yourself. Robert Bell  02:51 Don’t worry. He listens to the show. So, it’s okay. Robert Bell  02:56 So, he gets in front of this judge, and he testifies about what happened in 2011 in New York during this incident that was dismissed. And it’s not that the Judge disliked the behavior. He just disliked his “cavalier attitude about it” and denied the permit. Fast forward to 2023. Mikhail applies again, and this time his wife applies as well. Both denied. Simply on the basis of a previous denial. They appeal it. They deny the wife simply because she lives with him, and they deny him because he was dishonest with us before. And if he’s telling the truth now, it means he was either lying then or lying now. It doesn’t matter. It was just a catch 22 of you lied at some point, and I don’t like that. You are not of the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s that, that was the, the addition to the weasel clause that I think our viewers know, right? Evan Nappen  04:11 So, let’s do, let’s explain a little bit. The disqualifiers that exist in the gun laws under (Chapter) 58. There’s a list of what we often call the per se disqualifiers, where somebody like if you’re a convicted felon, it’s a per se disqualifier. And virtually everybody knows that. But New Jersey has this catch-all, the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that we refer to as “public health, safety, and welfare”. And that provision, that basis for denial is the area where we see the most significant abuse, particularly racist abuse. Where there’s a disproportionate denial of blacks by more than two and a half times to whites. It is the section of the law that is fraught with abuse on stopping the individual from being able to get licensed. The law was changed in New Jersey from just “public health, safety, and welfare”, but adding the phrase about “based on character of temperament”. Well, Rob, why did they add that? Why don’t you tell listeners why? You know the history. Why was that put in there? Robert Bell  05:26 In June 2022, when the (United States) Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, the anti-gun states, the gun the rights oppressors in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, were absolutely seething. And they have been going on a temper tantrum ever since. In December 2022, they decided to pass that temper tantrum into legislation that was signed by the governor immediately. And it added “. . . the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” Where they found that was in footnote one of the Bruen opinion. Footnote one of the Bruen opinion explains the laws of multiple states, including that of Connecticut, and they quoted a case called Dwyer versus Farrell. Now, Dwyer versus Farrell is a Connecticut case about the firearms laws. Robert Bell  06:16 However, the Supreme Court quoted Dwyer versus Farrell, and they had a phrase in it, essential character of temperament, necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. However, the Supreme Court of the United States unfortunately has a typo in that footnote. It actually reads “character or temperament”. So, we know exactly what they were doing. They were just combing that decision, looking for anything and everything to keep this unctuous statute going for as long as they possibly can so that they can continue oppressing gun rights. So, now we have a phrase in the weasel clause that is a result of the legislature copying somebody else’s homework and passing it off as a sensible phrase, because it makes no sense. Evan Nappen  07:05 And now it’s actually. But Rob, now it’s actually had the opposite effect of what they intended. Because in this case law, it creates a limitation, as expressed in Polatov, as to what that actually means, right? Robert Bell  07:24 Correct. They actually have spoken up on what that means, and it’s in part because I pointed out where it came from. I think. Evan Nappen  07:32 I think you’re right. No, absolutely, it’s why. And now what is that phrase now mean in New Jersey, as it applies to the entire weasel clause now, right? Because it modifies the whole weasel clause. What is the standard that has now been determined by Polatov? By that case. Robert Bell  07:53 They seem to have rejected my original argument that it requires repetitive misconduct. But then they go on to say, “character of temperament” means the basic defining qualities of a person’s emotional response. And to lack the basic qualities of one’s emotional response means to have no stable or consistent emotional core necessary for responsible action. In other words, to be so volatile that armament would endanger the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. I don’t know how you prove that someone’s volatile without pointing to multiple instance of misconduct, but. Evan Nappen  08:30 But they are basing that, very importantly, on Koons v. Platkin, correct? Robert Bell  08:40 Correct. Evan Nappen  08:40 Now, what is the quote that the Court relies upon, which is extremely significant, because now we have, for the first time, a New Jersey appellate case law getting published utilizing the federal win, the federal law in our favor, and now that becomes part of New Jersey state law fighting, right? It’s very significant. It bridges the state to the federal. What did they do, Rob? What did they do? Robert Bell  09:16 They quoted Koons v Platkin when they said that the weasel clause must focus on whether the applicant armed with a firearm poses a danger to the public. So, we’re running in circles with vague rules. Evan Nappen  09:31 But now we have the standard of the violence and danger to public. We’ve seen many times in the denial that it has nothing. They put forward nothing to do with violence or danger that they don’t ever deny, as this case illustrates. What did the judge deny him for? Nothing having to do with violence? Robert Bell  09:57 Credibility. Evan Nappen  09:59 Right! Robert Bell  09:59 Credibility. Evan Nappen  10:00 Which is not a basis. And so, this is going to have the effect of cutting down a lot of the wrongful denials that we’ve encountered, that we’ve seen. Robert Bell  10:13 It’s certainly something we can use to smack back them. Evan Nappen  10:16 Yes. Now, we want to see it go further, of course, and to finally be taken out as utterly and completely unconstitutional to even have this type of disqualifier in the gun laws. But what has been accomplished here, with the Polatov case, is incorporating the federal wins in gun law, the federal case law into state law, and establishing a more narrowing. It narrows more the “public health, safety, or welfare” disqualifier than we had prior to the law being changed. Robert Bell  11:04 Oh, yes, because now it has to focus on the applicant. People used to get denied permits for individuals who live in their house with them. If they were a convicted felon, if they were under a restraining order, if they had been involuntarily committed, something like that. Evan Nappen  11:18 Right! And that is a classic that we see going on all the time in New Jersey with an innocent third party. They attempt to disarm the innocent third party because of some other party in the household who is otherwise disqualified. Teddy Nappen  11:37 Didn’t they just pass that law, too? Where they’re now, like doing what are they trying to know like now hold or the household background check? Evan Nappen  11:45 What I’m talking about here, and I think Rob knows. When we enter into these cases where it’s an innocent third party who’s being denied their gun rights or have had their guns seized because, say, somebody else in the household gets a restraining order against them. Robert Bell  12:04 Correct. Vicarious, vicarious disability, I guess you could call it. Evan Nappen  12:08 Right! And then they abuse the case where a person said, oh yeah, I’ve let the disqualified person have the gun, you know? And suddenly that makes everybody in a household is disqualified. And so, this is going to help to end that practice, and help end those arguments of becoming disenfranchised of your gun rights because somebody else in your household is disqualified. Because it doesn’t make you, the individual, have a character or temperament problem. Robert Bell  12:47 Correct! And it doesn’t even sound like the legislature knew that what they were doing there. They just had a temper tantrum, and they limited something that they liked to use Evan Nappen  12:57 Oh, yeah! Absolutely. Teddy Nappen  12:58 Rob, I just have a question regarding, I was reading through the case, just the background of like, what they were highlighting, where it was the they thought he “lied” about it. But I just didn’t understand about his history, the criminal history of the charge, of why they were denying him. It just seemed like it was a complete misunderstanding of the question when they were asking. Did he have, like, the history? Because I was reading through the transcript that was in the decision, and it just seemed like they were confused, like it just seemed. Robert Bell  13:29 Yes, at least in that first hearing, that I did not represent him in. It seems that way. It just seems like he said, whatever. And also I don’t, I don’t know that it’s in the transcript, but that was on Zoom. That was. Teddy Nappen  13:44 Oh, even better. Robert Bell  13:45 Yeah, so that hearing was on Zoom. Evan Nappen  13:47 And wasn’t both licensing hearings in front of the same Bergen County judge? Robert Bell  13:54 And that was a beautiful point. I like to tap myself on the back for that. I said the same judge and the cops have gotten in the way of this man arming himself for five years. Evan Nappen  14:05 And I would like to point out to folks, if they want to actually read this decision, we’re going to have the link. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a3720-23.pdf) There’s a transcription of the colloquy of the first hearing between the judge and the client. I think it illustrates what goes on in that court. Because when you read that, keep in mind the questioning you see going on there isn’t being done by the prosecutor. It’s being done by the Court, who is aggressively interrogating the applicant. Read it for yourself. You can see what goes on in that court when it comes to a Judge, who you want to be a neutral judicial authority, but he takes on the role of a cross examiner. It’s very interesting. It gives you a taste of what goes on there and what our client went through. You read it for yourself, folks. Robert Bell  15:11 Twice. Teddy Nappen  15:11 Now, multiply that times 1000 and that’s almost every gun case for New Jersey. Where you know it’s a prosecutor, a judge who you know, a political appointee who has a bias and wants to take away our rights. Evan Nappen  15:25 Well, we don’t know. Why? Why else? What is going on? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. Is it just simply pursuing an agenda? Is it simply a rule that is now become something where the issuing authority is, is in  prepositioned here to be aggressively questioning on the side of the Government of taking rights and not the role of protecting rights, of expanding rights, of being the one who ensures the protection of individual rights, but rather the one pushing hard on whether to take rights! That’s what you can you can argue and reflect upon. Teddy Nappen  16:13 Well, I think it comes back to just look at the Bruen decision with the dissent from Jackson. What was her view of our rights? When you consider the Second Amendment, you have to consider the issues of gun violence and threats to the community and everything else, but not actually looking at the law. That is the mindset of these people. They always bring in that bias, every single time. You see it from reading that transcript. Evan Nappen  16:40 From Jackson and see. You know, these are what when we talk about individual rights, they’re supposed to be a guarantee of our individual rights, and that guarantee is not voided by way of all these other political arguments. Okay? That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Teddy Nappen  17:03 You also have the, I always think of the line from “The Untouchables”, you know, where the guy says, “let’s do some good”. Like, that’s the mindset. They think like this. Oh, man, you’re doing such a service in denying this, this poor guy who literally is, like, what was he? He was Russian born and was in the Polish military. Robert Bell  17:23 And he knew how to handle a firearm. Teddy Nappen  17:25 Knew how to handle a firearm. Did all this history. Comes here and gets a full degree, family, everything. And he gets denied because “I don’t like guns”. Well, it’s disgusting. Evan Nappen  17:36 It’s a constant battle that we undergo. And speaking of that battle, one of the key fighters for our rights is the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are the state gun rights group. They are the umbrella organization for the NRA. They’re multiple gun clubs that all belong in the Association. They have a full-time paid lobbyist down in Trenton keep an eye on the shenanigans going on there. Plus they’re fighting in the courts. I mean, Koons versus Platkin. Guess what? Association is on that case. And these are the important things that are this great organization is doing. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org That’s the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Make sure you join. Make sure you’re part of the solution. Evan Nappen  18:32 I also want to talk about our really good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. We’ve all shot. Rob, you’ve shot at WeShoot as well. Robert Bell  18:43 Correct you are. Evan Nappen  18:43 And so has Teddy. Yep. And we love WeShoot. That is the range. it is right there in Lakewood, conveniently off the Parkway. You can have access to a fantastic resource for being able to shoot right there. They have great training and a great pro shop. That’s where we got our CCARE certificates for getting our carries, and you can get yours there as well. And get all kinds of training – both advanced and novice. Make sure that you check out WeShoot and the WeShoot website, which is at weshootusa.com. You can see the famous WeShoot photography and the WeShoot girls. They have a lot of fantastic deals on firearms that they’re running. You’ll love it. Everyone loves WeShoot. Go there and have a great day at the range. Evan Nappen  19:43 And let me also take a moment to shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey gun law. It’s a book used by, well, everybody that wants to know about New Jersey gun law. You need to get your copy. Go to EvanNappen.com and order a copy today. It will help you get through the matrix of insanity called New Jersey gun laws and hopefully not become a GOFU, which is always a challenge in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. So, Teddy, what do you have today for us in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen  20:23 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I always make it a point. And everyone who has been listening on the show knows I always want to do opposition research. What are they talking about? What is the argument? And you know, our good friends at The Trace. They always keep us abreast on whatever, you know, with their little message and propaganda. And there’s been this huge push where they’re trying to, like, you know, push Trump out and say, oh, he’s anti-gun. He’s hurting gun owners. They always try to make this argument that he’s anti-gun. They go on this Trump deranged rant, but they’re an anti-gun outlet. So, they would be praising Trump for this, but they still go after him. It’s very confusing. And it’s just the, it’s because whenever it comes, Evan Nappen  21:11 They’re schizophrenic, man! Teddy Nappen  21:12 Well, no, it’s the issue of the fact, you always have to remember these people are Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, it doesn’t matter about standards or beliefs. It’s about defeating the opposition. They don’t care what position they have to take, so long as they defeat their opponent. That’s how you end up with, you know, where you end up with crazies. Where they have, like, the groups of the Left trying to join, you know, “Free Maduro” and “Free Iran”. Like, that level of insanity. So, their latest article from this guy by the name of Champe Barton. I don’t care. “Trump’s Tariffs Are Driving Up Ammo Prices”. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/03/trump-tariffs-ammunition-prices/) This is something they’ve been pushing for for the longest time. Evan Nappen  22:01 So, they should be totally in favor of tariffs then, because it helps promote their anti-gun agenda, right? Teddy Nappen  22:08 Oh, that would be the argument, but they’re like. Iinstead, it’s just this whole the pro-gun President is hurting gun owners. And they go on this whole stupid thing, like pro-gun President squeezing the ammo industry. Gun owners, bullets, all the humanity, like it’s the level of like they try like the turbulence has arrived. Trump has billed himself the most pro-gun president ever. Yet steeping tariffs in metals and chemicals used to make ammunition is ratcheting up the prices and costs for ammunition. And according to the Ammunition Depot, the average daily price of nine millimeter full jacket, as widely used by the caliber of the market, has ticked up steadily. In January, it’s twice topped 35 cents, the highest level since 2023. About 10 cents more than the average price during 2025. So, I love the game. They always like try to quote, oh, this is a respective source. So you know what? I actually went to the Ammo Depot. I actually went to their sources. And let’s give a little history. So, in December 2020, full metal jacket was of Evan Nappen  23:28 Nine millimeter, full metal jacket? Teddy Nappen  23:30 Full Metal Jacket, 1000 rounds was about 180 prior to 2020. Then it jumped to like 600 to 700 dollars per you know, per 1000. You remember that 2020 days? Evan Nappen  23:34 I remember. Teddy Nappen  23:44 Those golden bricks. They were selling. Evan Nappen  23:46 Crazy prices. Robert Bell  23:47 Gaslighting. Teddy Nappen  23:48 Yeah, oh, yeah. And then cut to February 2021, and the prices was like 70 cents, a round, 90 cents around. And then 2023 to 2024, things finally started to calm down once the end of Covid, where it was 20 cents and it was 27 cents. Then it was 23 cents. Just hovering around that number. And then 2025 it’s at around 21 cents to 24 cents. And of November, 2025 it dropped to 20 cents. I went to the prices index. Went right to the index, it hovers around 12 cents per round to 30 cents per round. So, what the heck are they talking about? This whole stupidity of an argument which, by the way, the experts are still trying to figure out, where’s all this inflation? I mean, we’ve been saying tariffs are inflationary, but none of the inflation has hit. Evan Nappen  24:42 That’s because a lot of the manufacturing has just absorbed it in a cost-of-doing business, and competition has made it so it did not skyrocket. Teddy Nappen  24:51 Yeah. Also, we are the largest producer of lead ore. We exported 864 million of ore. Know how much we imported? Evan Nappen  25:01 Ooooh, and a lot of that lead comes out of the front of a barrel of a little gun, right? Teddy Nappen  25:07 I know, right? Evan Nappen  25:08 Exporting it all around. It’s great. Teddy Nappen  25:08 I know. We, you know, it’s good. You know what? We should export more to Iran. Evan Nappen  25:15 We are really exporting a lot of lead to Iran. Teddy Nappen  25:20 I know, right? But then I even pulled up. I always do this. I like citing Left-leaning sources to prove they’re against their argument. MSN, they brought on expert. You have to understand. Step one, tariffs on imports do raise the price on imports, but you have to remember U.S. experts earn the withdrawal by buying imports from other countries. So, if you have a tax on imports, it’s exactly the same on a tax of exports. That’s called linear symmetry theorem, exactly the same. And therefore what happens is, all the exported goods and services, their prices will fall. So, the increase of price imports is matched by the fall of price. So, it comes down to net zero. That’s their whole argument. That’s their whole long winded claim of like this is the reason. Instead of just admitting tariffs are non-inflationary and just accepting that reality. Because if you look to the price all the time. Evan Nappen  26:16 Let’s step back and look how they’re trying to twist that into somehow Trump is hurting the Second Amendment, or something. Like, first of all, they would be rejoicing if, in fact, he was hurting it. So, why are they putting it out that it’s in any way a problem? Instead they’re trying to just convince what? A MAGA base of some sort that he’s betraying them or something. The politics of that is just bizarro for The Trace, otherwise they should just praise it. In other words, they’re in favor of it. Teddy Nappen  26:49 Dad. Evan Nappen  26:49 What? Teddy Nappen  26:49 Well, this is the trick. Cut to the Germans in World War Two. You’re already lost. Your allies have abandoned you. You are losing men and materials. Your tariffs are causing inflation. Evan Nappen  27:03 Right! Exactly. Teddy Nappen  27:04 This is their game, where they’re trying to break up MAGA in that idea. Evan Nappen  27:08 Right! Teddy Nappen  27:10 Whereas that’s why you have all the black pillars, you have all these stupid people trying to make propaganda, yeah, and that’s the truth, and that’s why you push all these lies. And, you know. Just cut to Harry Entonces, the golden retriever of CNN – MAGA support, 100% on the GOP. Evan Nappen  27:30 Yeah, 100! Teddy Nappen  27:32 That’s, I thought like, he’s making that up. There’s no way. But it’s CNN, like they already undervalue it. So, at this point it’d be 110% for Trump, because it’s that level of. Evan Nappen  27:43 Right! Teddy Nappen  27:43 It’s so stupid. So, this psyop, they try to do a breaking up Trump from the gun owners, breaking up MAGA. This is all lies. And I have the articles here from that. From the Ore World, from showing the levels of production. It’s all lies, factual inaccuracies. Evan Nappen  28:05 Well, I appreciate you pointing that out. I’m sure the listeners do as well. And Rob, what a great job and what a fight you had all through. From the trial level through the appellate level, but victory is yours! Because it is not just a win on the appeal, but it is a published case that actually establishes law for New Jersey and even brings in now the federal case law. It’s quite an accomplishment. It’s really great. Robert Bell  28:40 Thank you! Evan Nappen  28:40 And I want to want to tell you that at the end of the show, we always do the GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We try to educate our folks about not making mistakes that we’ve seen others make in our practice. They’re expensive mistakes, and they can learn here for free not to do them. So this week’s GOFU, I want to ask you, Rob. Based on anything you’ve been dealing with or observing as any kind of GOFU that you’d like to let our listeners know about for this week? Robert Bell  29:18 Sure thing. But before I do, I forgot to mention that in the Polotov case, the judge and prosecutor are absolutely seething. Evan Nappen  29:26 Oh, really? Wait, what is that? Why is that? Robert Bell  29:29 Well, I very triumphantly emailed an order to the Court and ccd the prosecutor who originally was on this case. Evan Nappen  29:42 And wait, wait. An order for what? Robert Bell  29:44 Granting the permit! Evan Nappen  29:46 Well, let’s explain why. Because the Court in the appellate decision ordered, not just reversing the decision of the lower court, but ordered the issuance of the Firearms Purchaser ID Card. So, you sent the Court order to the trial court saying, here do this order, reversing denial and ordering the issuance of the of the FID card, as the appellate court has so stated, right? Robert Bell  30:16 Correct! Evan Nappen  30:17 So, you did that, right? And what happened? Robert Bell  30:19 Yes, and the Bergen County prosecutors, there were two of them on the email said, oh, please hold off on that. We need to, we need to. We need to talk about this. We need to confer to see if we’re going to appeal or file a stay. So, they’re running scared. Evan Nappen  30:37 For reconsideration or something? Do they actually think they could get a reconsideration of an appellate case that the Appellate Division chose to make published? Robert Bell  30:49 Let’em try. Teddy Nappen  30:50 When it comes. Evan Nappen  30:51 Oh, boy. Teddy Nappen  30:52 When it comes to guns, they’ll always make an exception for us. Evan Nappen  30:57 Well, I don’t know why, but they’re taking it, they’re not taking it very well, huh? From what you’re saying. Robert Bell  31:05 I would say that what they’re doing may be a GTFU – a Gun Tyrant Fuck Up. Which brings us to the GOFU. Evan Nappen  31:15 Well, that does. And wait one second. You know anybody who’s had their firearm license, FID Card denied, this may now present the opportunity to go back. And if you were denied and if it wasn’t based on a criteria that would now fit in the violence area, right? If it was “public health, safety, or welfare” denial of old that this opens a door for you to at least put in for re-application or give a call to us or your other attorneys and see maybe we can do something about reviewing the denial that should not have occurred. So, it opens the door to that for that. Robert Bell  32:08 They have the right not have a denial on their record if it was erroneous the first time around. Evan Nappen  32:13 Right! So, this opens that door. But go ahead, what’s the GOFU, Rob? What is your GOFU? Robert Bell  32:19 I have encountered it multiple times – voluntary registration of an inherited firearm. And I just don’t understand why someone would do that. I hope no one out there does do it. But in New Jersey, for example, if you inherit a firearm from a loved one, a parent, what have you, you do not have to go through the rigmarole of getting a purchase permit. It simply comes to you. However, there is voluntary registration in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. You can go to their website and voluntarily give them the information – serial number, the make and model. I don’t know. That’s like talking to cops. And with that, I’m like, I’m good. I’m good. Evan Nappen  33:01 Yeah, I don’t know why anybody would voluntarily register. The first word is voluntary, which means you don’t have to do it. So, you don’t. There’s no reason to voluntarily register your firearm. I’ve yet to find the reason that makes it a good idea. Haven’t seen it. Now, if someone can tell me that reason, that’d be nice to know. But I don’t see it. And instead, all you’re doing is putting yourself on the radar when there’s no reason to do it. Then people that do voluntarily register, then raise the State and looking into them. So, now you’re simply saying, hey, look at me, check out the reason for registration, and what I’m writing and everything else about it. And so, all you’re doing is waving a big flag at the Government to focus on you as well. It’s completely unnecessary. Absolutely a classic GOFU is anybody stupid enough to voluntarily register one of their guns. Evan Nappen  34:12 This is Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, and Robert Bell, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2  34:27 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 E282_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";

A machine cannot own a patent, a copyright, or a single brushstroke for the art it creates, according to a recent decision. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast begins with our pious host, Mike Slater, urging the audience to "trust God's plan" when listening to commentary about President Donald J. Trump's actions with the U.S. military as they continue their campaigns against the nation of Iran. Following that, Slater speaks to Peter Breen, Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation for Thomas More Society, about recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court related to parental rights as they relate to transgender madness within our schools. Don't miss it! MAGA! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

For years Americans were told the transgender debate was settled.No questions.No discussion.No nuance.Just accept it.But suddenly something interesting is happening across the world.The United States Supreme Court is weighing parental rights, European governments are reversing gender policies, and international sports federations are rewriting rules to restore competitive fairness.So what changed?In tonight's episode of The Last Gay Conservative, Chad Law walks through the three major cracks forming in the transgender policy narrative:• The Supreme Court stepping into parental rights and secret school gender transitions• Europe reversing course after major medical reviews• Sports organizations confronting biological realitiesThis episode isn't about attacking anyone.It's about asking a question that should have been asked years ago:Did society move too fast?And if it did — how does America correct course while protecting fairness, science, and common sense?Because in America, cultural change isn't forced.It's earned.

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Fox News losing all control following Donald Trump's total and utter loss before the United States Supreme Court. NOBL gives you real travel peace of mind — security, design, and convenience all in one. Head to https://NOBLTravel.com for 46% off your entire order! #NOBL #adventure Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Dentist Money Two Cents, a look at the latest financial and economic news from the past week.
 On this episode of Dentist Money's Two Cents, Matt, Sean, and Rabih talk about the major ruling from the United States Supreme Court that reclassified tariffs as a form of tax and discuss why the recent tariff reversal may be more market noise than a meaninful economic shift. They also explore the tax benefits of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and long-term value for covering medical costs in retirement. And finally, they unpack how solo 401(k)s and SEP IRAs work, why contributions limits matter, and the challenges of managing finances across multiple business entities. Book a free consultation with a CFP® advisor who only works with dentists. Get an objective financial assessment and learn how Dentist Advisors can help you live your rich life.

Episode 277-Three-Round Burst of GOFU’s Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 277 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS GOFUs, New Jersey gun laws, vampire rule, sensitive places, unlawful possession, pretrial detention, federal injunction, carry permit, gun transport, Second Amendment, gun rights, legal advice, gun ownership, gun regulations, gun safety, gun culture. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you know our show here, one of the things that is very, very famous about our show are GOFUs. And GOFUs, as my listeners know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. The idea with GOFUs is these are real cases, actual things that happened. They are expensive lessons that people learn, and that you, the listener, get to learn for free. And of course, we always do the GOFU at the end of the show, whatever this week’s GOFU may be. But suddenly I’ve been pounded with GOFUs, and they’re very important. And I said, you know what? We’re going to do a three round burst here of some really important GOFUs, including what I want to begin with by telling you about this actual case. It illustrates just how insane New Jersey is and what every law-abiding gun owner could, in fact, face. Evan Nappen 01:32 Of course, I’m not using any names, but this is an actual situation that occurred. And some things, looking at the situation that the, and not just necessarily a mistake that the gun owner did, but something that hit me as extremely important for every New Jersey gun owner to make sure they do. There’s a very simple thing that is very important that could be critical between whether or not they hold you in jail or release you. We’re going to get to that from this story so you’ll learn this secret, so that you don’t end up in this GOFU situation. Spending days or weeks incarcerated for nothing, because that’s what the Gulag does, as you know. This is a case that wraps it all up into that. Evan Nappen 02:39 So, here’s this guy who comes into New Jersey, and he’s at a mall. Now, as you may know, the mall is not, in and of itself, a sensitive place, right? Those of us who have familiarized ourself, which hopefully all of you have, with these “sensitive places”. A mall is not, per se, a sensitive place. Now, there can be rules regarding malls where they say, hey, no guns in the mall. We don’t want guns, you know. And any Page – 2 – of 11 private property, whether open to the public or not, can have a prohibition privately saying we don’t want any guns here. In the same way they could say, we don’t want any dogs. We don’t want any bare feet. You know, things like that. The property owner has certain control. But if there is such a sign, if there is such a statement by a property owner, then if you come on to that property and they don’t want you on that property for a reason such as that. They can’t say, hey, we don’t allow minorities on our property. You know, they can’t. You can’t have racial discrimination in a place open to the public. But you can have other restrictions. Evan Nappen 04:07 Now, I happen to personally think that firearms should be viewed as a civil right and in the same category as discrimination, because it is a civil right. But that’s not currently how the law is. So, if a private entity prohibits gun, says no guns, then if you still go on that property and you’re specifically told to leave and don’t, then you’re what’s known as a defiant trespasser. So, what we’re talking about is trespassing, but trespassing is not a sensitive place violation. Sensitive place violations are specific gun law violations that create a certain place that becomes a prohibited area under the law to carry a gun, even if you have a permit to carry. So, this person is in the mall and apparently gets approached by mall security, who has allegedly dogs that can sniff gunpowder. Believe it or not, they’re out there. Apparently, he’s approached and they say, we think you have a gun. Please leave. And he does. No problem. He was asked to leave, and he leaves. Evan Nappen 05:30 After leaving, while in his car, driving, he gets stopped by police. More than even one because, oh, there’s a gun, right? Because, obviously, security called it in, I guess, at some point, and he was stopped. He is stopped for violating, in their minds, the sensitive place prohibition under Section 24 under Chapter 58 of the sensitive places. And what is that? What is that sensitive place that they believe he’s in violation of? Oh, New Jersey’s version of the vampire rule. The vampire rule is that you need permission before you go onto any private property. That is the issue that’s before the United States Supreme Court. The Hawaii, you know, the Woolford case in front of SCOTUS. We’re waiting for a decision. Evan Nappen 06:43 Now, Hawaii had the law just like New Jersey. The only difference is New Jersey’s vampire rule case saying that you can’t go on to private property, whether open to the public or not open to the public, you cannot go on any private property in New Jersey unless you first have permission to carry your gun there. In other words, they needed to have a sign, you know, that says we love guns. You know, basically, guns welcome. You know, guns permitted. Essentially, a sign. Or you got specific permission from the property owner before you enter the property. Hence the vampire rule. You know, as long as you don’t invite the vampire in to your place. That’s where that comes from. Evan Nappen 07:34 Well, New Jersey’s vampire rule, to impose this, you need permission first, before you can go on private property, even private property open to the public, has been found and was found unconstitutional in the Koons versus Platkin case. In Koons. And in that case, as you may recall, Judge Bump found it was unconstitutional and put an injunction on that section, saying it is unenforceable. It’s Page – 3 – of 11 unconstitutional. That any private property that is open to the public, you’re allowed to bring your gun on unless it’s otherwise a sensitive place. So, you know, if you want to go into a 7-11 with your carry gun, you can. It’s open to the public, even though it’s privately owned by 7-11. Now, if you want to go to a private residence, a private place that’s not open to the public, then you do need advanced permission for that. If you go into even your friend’s house, your friend needs to be able to say, yeah, you have permission to have your gun at my house. But not open to the public. Evan Nappen 09:00 So, the mall is open to the public. The mall is not a per se sensitive place. Yet, in this case, the basis for stopping and arresting this man or woman, I won’t even tell you what the sex is, the basis for the arrest is an alleged violation of the sensitive place section for which there is a federal injunction against enforcement. Then because somehow there’s this belief that if you are in violation of sensitive place, you’re also unlawfully carrying even though you have a carry permit, which makes absolutely no sense. There’s no logic to that. He’s charged with unlawful possession of a handgun without a carry permit, even though he has a carry permit. And, of course, with those gun charges, off to the Gulag you go. So, you are arrested, and you are put in jail. Evan Nappen 10:16 Now, the Gulag kicks in, where there’s 48 hours in which the prosecutor gets to decide whether to seek pretrial detention. It is solely within the discretion of the prosecutor. And if the prosecutor decides to seek pretrial detention, you’re going to be held for another five days before there’s a hearing when we can actually argue to get you out. And with the new law that was just signed by Murphy, they can get an additional five days to make sure that the gun is operable, to get an operability report, which is irrelevant to the charges anyway. So, by this arrest, you actually have the opportunity to be incarcerated basically for two weeks, guilty of nothing. Evan Nappen 11:08 What happened? Well, luckily, I got a call very quickly. When this person was in jail, loved ones got a hold of me. And this is on a Saturday, my friends, on a Saturday. Yeah. They do these on Saturday. They just hired me in time that I was able to get onto the court hearing 15 minutes before that first 48 hour time period, for that very first hearing where there’s no argument. The prosecutor either is going to say we’re seeking pretrial detention or not, but at least I could get on. And, lo and behold, I get on, and the prosecutor, big shock, is seeking pretrial detention, which means he’s going to be held or she is going to be held another five days or so, to have that hearing. It may be longer if they’re going to go for the operability nonsense, too. Teddy Nappen 12:11 Doesn’t Bergen County always seek pretrial detention? Evan Nappen 12:16 Well, it’s not just Bergen. And let me say this isn’t necessarily even Bergen, by the way, Teddy. But most counties have a policy of just automatically seeking pretrial detention on most gun cases. So, that’s not a big surprise. But what happens is, in this 48 hour period here, we still have the court appearance. But there’s nothing an attorney officially can do, because the prosecutor is given the sole Page – 4 – of 11 discretion. The prosecutor says, well, it’s gun charges with the Graves Act. Because, of course, the seriousness of the charge is second degree. You’re looking up to 10 years in State Prison. You’ve got a minimum mandatory three and a half years with no chance of parole. So, because of the seriousness of that offense and the Graves Act and it’s guns, we’re going to seek pretrial detention. Evan Nappen 13:13 And the court says, you know, Mr. Nappen, do you have anything that you want to add? And I say, and here’s exactly what I did them. I said, look, I understand how much discretion the prosecutor has here. Normally, we just have to wait until the hearing in order to argue. But I have to say, and I make it clear here. I say, look, my client not only had a permit to carry and why the state can’t access it, you know, they took his wallet and he can’t get to his wallet. And for whatever reason, there’s some glitch in them trying to get it out of the State Police. I don’t know why, but the very basis for his arrest was for a law for which there is an injunction, a federal injunction, that’s been upheld even by the Appeals Court. So, you have law enforcement violating a federal court injunction and charging and utilizing a statute that is enjoined from being enforced. Evan Nappen 14:19 So, in complete violation of that injunction, I make it clear that that is what is going on here with someone who has a permit, who has the lowest scores on the PSA of a one, one, that’s the lowest you can get. The PSAs are your flight risk and danger risk that they calculate into whether you’re to be released. Now they’re looking to hold them for another five to 10 days to even try to get them argued out. And at that point, the court officer actually says, well, counselor, there’s no argument here at this level. You’ll have to argue, you know, at the hearing when it gets scheduled. And I said, look, I’m not arguing anything. I said, do you know what I’m doing? I’m putting the State on notice as to the civil rights violation taking place on my client. At which time, the prosecutor says, look, we haven’t even had a chance to talk, and I said, no, we haven’t. I just got hired and got on here 15 minutes ago. Well, let’s talk. I said, okay. Evan Nappen 15:24 We had a private conference, and when we came back, I’m happy to say that the prosecutor withdrew their motion for pretrial detention. My client got out of jail that day, and now we will fight these charges. I’m extremely confident in how that fight is going to go as well. So, folks, what are the takeaways? Look at the risk you’re running. Look at the utter and complete failure of the Attorney General of New Jersey to inform law enforcement as to the changes in the law by these court actions. Why are the police charging an offense which has been enjoined? Police should know better, but I’ll tell you what else. The Attorney General should be instructing, the way they’ve done so many other times on so many other things, to all law enforcement, explaining how that sensitive place has been enjoined. And how on public property, it is not a sensitive place where you need prior permission under the vampire rule. This hasn’t been done. So, you have what is essentially a false arrest taking place. Evan Nappen 17:06 You have a system designed to incarcerate gun owners. It is outrageous, and you need to know that this what you’re up against. So, what do you need to do to protect yourself? Where’s the GOFU aspect? Well, let me tell you something that would be really important. Here’s what everybody should Page – 5 – of 11 do. Make sure your carry permit, make sure your gun licenses, are also, copies are given to your loved ones. People you can count on. Because if you get incarcerated and your wife or your parents or your brother is calling me and if they can get me copies of your carry permit or gun license that you otherwise can’t access, I can get that to the prosecutor. There doesn’t have to be a dependency for somehow getting it out of the State Police in time. Or finding it in some wallet that’s been confiscated and held in evidence in some other place, in some other room, somewhere else. That can be of great assistance, immediate assistance, in addressing your arrest and avoiding further gulaging of you. So, make sure. The takeaway is to make sure that folks that care about you, that would be the people you would go to if you had a problem, that they can provide and have access to copies of your gun licenses. That would be incredibly important. The other thing is make sure you have an attorney that you can get a hold of right away. An attorney that can come to your aid, argue, to get you out on a Saturday where time is of the essence. Those are the takeaways that are critical from this experience. Evan Nappen 19:08 Let me tell you, the GOFU has taken on a life of its own, and I’m glad about it. I have here a listener who sent a GOFU that they wanted to make our other listeners aware of, and I appreciate that. They asked that I not use a name, but here’s the GOFU letter. It says, I have a GOFU for you. It’s important for people to know to do this, so please share it on your show. This past fall, I planned a trip to Western New York to visit my family. I have a New Jersey PTC, also a PA PTC. I really like to have my gun along on trips with the highway driving. So, I asked a few guys at the shooting range what I should do with the gun when I got to New York state line. They told me to stop at a rest stop before I enter the state, put the unloaded gun in a car safe, and I should be good. That’s what I did. When I reached my destination, I told my family I had brought it, since they like guns, and they absolutely freaked out. They told me, the police would arrest me. It was illegal to bring a gun into a destination in New York. I better bring it in the house and keep it hidden. And hide it really well on the drive back. They really got me worried. So worried, in fact, I couldn’t get to sleep. So, I checked New York gun laws, and sure enough, she was correct. I was scared and felt terrible. I was incriminating my family members. Needless to say, the gun and the safe box and its cable were very hidden on the way back. I was careful not to break any speed limits. You can sum it up this way, but my takeaway is you have to do your own research before you take your gun out of state. Otherwise, you might end up in jail, and I’m very thankful that I didn’t. Evan Nappen 20:50 This is very true. State lines mean something. Now, here’s where the GOFU was. The GOFU was not following Title, 18, 926A thoroughly. That’s the federal preemption that lets you transport interstate. You have to be going from one place where you lawfully can possess and carry to another place. Your end destination has to be a place where you can lawfully possess and carry. Since New York does not recognize New Jersey’s permit or Pennsylvania’s permit, and unless you have a New York non-resident permit, that will not cover you. So, bringing your cased and unloaded gun into New York, now you’re possessing a handgun in New York, and you don’t have the protection of federal preemption. That’s the problem. Page – 6 – of 11 Evan Nappen 21:42 And it is a GOFU. This person is absolutely right. Make sure you know the laws. Make sure you clear it with counsel, so that you do not end up a GOFU. Because if that person had been stopped in New York with that handgun while in New York, they would face dire consequences. So, know the gun laws. Know the state laws. Do your research. Best bet? Well, you can always ask me, that’s one thing you want to do. Get my book, New Jersey Gun Law. I’ll shamelessly plug my book right now, because right in my book is a chapter on how to properly interstate transport, right in there on transportation of guns. What you need to know. Go to EvanNappen.com and get your copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. That’s the kind of stuff you need. That’s the kind of information you must have. That’s what you need to do. You cannot take these things lightly, because the consequences can be dire, and we see it. So, I appreciate this GOFU. I appreciate it being pointed out. These are real people experiencing the horrors of gun laws that are designed to ruin people’s lives and to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. To oppress our Second Amendment rights. That’s all these laws do. You’ve got to protect yourself, folks. Learn from these tips and learn from these cases so you don’t become the next GOFU. Evan Nappen 23:16 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an range indoor range in Lakewood, New Jersey. The range where Teddy and I both shoot. We love WeShoot. Great training. Great range facilities. Great pro shop, and a great bunch of folks. This week they’re running some great specials. They have the Chiappa Rhino 60DS, which is a futuristic revolver with its low bore access design. It’s kind of cool. It delivers, you know, reduced recoil because of that and fast follow up shots. They’ve got a Mossberg Gold Reserve Sporting shotgun. It’s an over and under, built for clay and field. It has engraving, premium walnut, and it’s competition ready. It’s a beautiful gun. Check out the Mossberg Gold Reserve Sporting. They also have a Springfield Prodigy Comp gun, comp gun. A modern double-stack 1911-style performer. It has an integrated compensator, and it’s optics ready. It has serious speed for duty or competition. Check out that Springfield. And you can also check out Sarah Sablom. She is on the hunt for a perfect carry gun. You can check out one of these WeShoot girls there. Go to weshootusa.com for their great website with amazing photography. They’re running great deals. They look forward to helping you and making you part of the WeShoot family. Go to weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 25:05 Let me also mention our friends at The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, who just recently, through my friend and colleague, Dan Schmutter, argued in the Coons case at the Appellate level. And we’re looking good. I’m cautiously optimistic. And that’s your Association at work in the courts, fighting the Carry Killer bill. They’re also fighting the assault firearm ban and the large capacity magazine ban. You need to be a member. Go to anjrpc.org. Make sure you belong to your state Association. They are the gun rights defenders for New Jersey. You’ll get a great emails of what’s going on. You’ll get the alerts. You’ll know that you’re part of the solution and helping to fight the gun rights oppressors in New Jersey. Go to anjrpc.org and join today. Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Page – 7 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 26:08 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and this is something I want people to understand. We cannot take our foot off the gas when it comes to fighting the good fight for our rights. Because, look, we have had a lot of great victories when it comes to Second Amendment, to the conservative movement, and to getting the word out there, thanks to Alternative tech. But the Left are slowly trying to crawl back their power. What do I mean by that? Well, our friends at Bearing Arms did an article. Cam Edwards says, NBC decided to give a platform to the anti-gun activists. (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/02/10/nbcs-today-show-gives-anti-2a-activist-platform-for-propaganda-n1231508) Oh, gee, what a shocker! Teddy Nappen 26:59 It was Nicole Hockley out of the Sandy Hook Promise. You know, another one of Bloomberg’s groups who called in to demonetize online influencers in the 2A space. You know, someone like you and I, Dad. You know, people like a Brandon Herrera or Grantham, Mr. Gunzing. You know, any individual who is a pro-gun influencer they want to demonetize. That’s their call to action. I love the framework that she abuses in this. Sandy Hook and the group called Untargeting Kids, a call for platform transparency, putting parents back in charge of firearm safety. You know, whenever I hear the Democrats try to say, we need to stand on parents rights, it’s always comes down to oh, when it comes to firearm safety. But, you know, when it is hardcore pornography being offered to children, oh, that’s fine. Or, you know, a drag queen story hour. Oh, that’s fine. But oh no, when it comes to firearms, we need to give it back to the parents. So, they were trying to, yeah, they were trying to run this experiment, testing YouTube accounts mimicking a nine to 14 year old. Evan Nappen 28:21 Wait. Are you telling me that the Left are hypocrites? Teddy Nappen 28:26 Oh, well, as the saying goes. Evan Nappen 28:28 I don’t know about that. Teddy Nappen 28:30 As the saying goes, they only have double standards, or they would not have any standards at all. Evan Nappen 28:37 Exactly. Teddy Nappen 28:39 That’s how it always is with them. Whenever you see the term parental rights, you can see in the very corner, TM. It’s their version. Not when it comes to gender ideology, not when it comes to abortion, not when it comes to any other thing, but parents rights, TM. That’s their abuse of the language. Did you ever hear the word Democracy, TM. Or Second Amendment, TM. That is their version. Not what we know to be fact and truth. It’s their version. But anyways. So, they ran this experiment, which, you Page – 8 – of 11 know, these experiments can easily be debunked just by the abuse of algorithms. But whatever. We will say, for the sake of argument, we will say this data is true. So, they ran this experiment, and then 14 year old received 1300 firearm-related video recommendations after watching video games and movies that included firearm content. So, you know, a kid watches a bunch of Let’s Plays on Call of Duty, and then all a sudden, he gets a breakdown of an unboxing of a ACOG scope or something stupid. It’s one of those where they’re trying to make this argument, this very weak argument, on saying, oh, these videos are being monetized to target advertising, targeting our children. So, if a kid is interested in firearms, what is the problem with that? Why? He gets bombarded with tons of movies on all forms of graphic violence that goes into that. Then all of a sudden, it comes up with ad on any other influencer regarding firearm breakdown, because that’s the goal. They want you to get engagement. That’s it. And then I love this one. 54% of boys from 10 to 17 report sexually charged firearm content. Now, they do not define what sexually charged firearm content is. Evan Nappen 30:40 What is sexually charged firearm content? What is that? Teddy Nappen 30:43 It’s called we made it up! Because they love to just define terms. Evan Nappen 30:52 They just threw sex with guns, and don’t define it. Teddy Nappen 30:55 Correct. It’s just, and by the way, they don’t list any of the materials that was reviewed by the bots. Evan Nappen 31:02 Wait, it sounds like ammosexuality. Teddy Nappen 31:05 I know. Yeah, it is the hopalosexual all over again. Evan Nappen 31:10 What is that? That’s really interesting. Teddy Nappen 31:12 Yeah, and they don’t list any of the video game content that was reviewed. It doesn’t list any of the movies reviewed or the TV shows. Oh, because they don’t want to show the sexually graphic material that is pushed by the Left. You know, that’s why, you know, ask them. Evan Nappen 31:28 They should list it. They should list all that so that we could carefully review it, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 31:32 Well, unfortunately. Page – 9 – of 11 Evan Nappen 31:34 All these sexual . . . Teddy Nappen 31:37 I know, right? I love, and then she goes on where they’re forming the sense of self-identity that the get, that getting, they’re getting content that is talking about firearms makes you powerful. Firearms makes you sexually attractive. Firearms are the way to solve your conflict. Firearms are used to solve very certain conflicts. You know, when defending yourself against a rapist or a pedophile. You know, in certain situations, it’s a very good solution. It’s not a magic wand, but it solves certain issues. But there’s more. They like to always equate, like, oh, why do you need a gun? Because your penis is small? Like, it’s one of the small ones. Like, it’s that. They always do that. We’re like, what does that have to do with the aspect of your rights to defend yourself? Like that is the goal that they always try to play. And then she goes off on this whole thing of, we need to demonetize this. We need to review this content and look at the algorithms of YouTube transparency on firearms. And there must be. We need to sense. It goes. This long-winded conversation is just, we need to have time to deletion for videos for unsafe handling of firearms. What’s unsafe? Oh, there’s a firearm in the video. It’s just that. It’s just we need it. That censorship is not our goal, though. Yes, it is. Evan Nappen 33:06 I’ll tell you what. Here’s where I’ll take them up on it. Before any movie or TV show where a gun is improperly handled, you know, shows produced by all these major media producers, just have a warning. Just the way they warn about profanity, and they warn about smoking. Put a warning that says “unsafe firearm use is in this movie”. Unsafe firearm use. Do you know how many times we’ll see that? Because the Left media is the largest actual demonstrator of unsafe and unlawful use of firearms. It’s not conservatives. It’s the opposite. And so, let’s see those warnings. That way people suddenly say, wow, look how many times firearms are abused, used improperly and used illegally in the movies? I mean, if you can warn about smoking, you should be able to warn about that. Just put it. Don’t, don’t, don’t suppress it. Don’t try to have prior restraint or ban it, the showing of any of these movies. Just put the warning up front, and let people see just what’s being promoted by Hollyweird. Teddy Nappen 34:33 Well, and also, Hollyweird promotes all the sexual deviancies, where they push it on children. Where you have, you know, children have access to now hardcore pornography all across the internet, thanks to YouTube. Thanks to social media. Like, the level of it’s so disingenuous. Making this argument that we need to protect our children. Except when it comes to the LGBTQAI+ in schools, when it comes to all the other things that they want to sexually groom children. But, oh, firearm content, that’s the issue. When you get down to it, this is what they want. They want the 2019, they want the Biden Administration censorship. Where, right here, out of the House Judiciary Committee where the chairman approves and shows, oh, Google was pressured by the Biden administration to censor Americans. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic) Page – 10 – of 11 Evan Nappen 35:30 That’s right. This is a really good point. They went after our First Amendment rights, just like the Second Amendment, and we lived through a period of Government censorship attempts that, when you look back, it was, it’s absolutely disgusting, what they pulled and what they were able to accomplish, even in achieving it, Teddy. It’s just insane. You would never think that could happen in America, because originally, the Left was for free speech. The Free Speech Movement was the Left, and now that’s no longer the case. They want the opposite. They don’t want free speech. Oh, hell no. But it used to be part of what true liberals, not today’s progressive, totalitarian liberals want, so-called. No, the classic liberal was absolute free speech, true, and they’ve abandoned that. They’ve abandoned it. Teddy Nappen 36:41 Well, it comes back to the idea of what the Left always does. They have no moral framework. The idea of, oh, what feels good? What is the cultural shift? What is the shifting ideology currently? Where you now have these massive purity tests on the Left, and that’s why they’re in a shooting war against each other as to who controls the party. But to even highlight this fact, Mark Zuckerberg said and admitted to the White House, yeah, I was pressured by the White House to censor people during Covid, over Covid 19 content. Doctors admitting all the false information that was out there. Bring that up. Completely censored off of Facebook, off of YouTube, all these platforms. X. You remember, you remember the Twitter files. Musk is releasing them weekly, showing the insidious combination of Government and censorship on the public square. This is what the Left wants. They are so upset that they have lost their ministry of truth. You remember that push? Evan Nappen 37:51 And they want to, right, and they want to use the same techniques to oppress the Second Amendment. It’s all part of the game plan. Teddy Nappen 38:02 Yeah. Evan Nappen 38:03 Well, Teddy, I appreciate you pointing this out, and I’m sure our listeners do as well. Let me tell you, we had a three round burst for GOFUs, and we only got two of the rounds out. Let me end here with the GOFU number three. And again, we saw this in action. These are actual cases, actual realities. I had a fellow client give me a call and say, hey, they were in court and they didn’t have counsel. Their guns were taken in an allegation of a so-called domestic violence, in which everything got dismissed. But there was an outstanding criminal charge that’s unfounded and going to the court. The so-called victim does not want to proceed. Does not want to proceed. So, what does the prosecutor do? The prosecutor tells this person, look, we’re going to downgrade this to a noise ordinance. Okay? So, it’s no longer in the category of domestic violence. If it stayed in that DV category, it makes you the equivalent of a convicted felon under federal law, and you’re banned from guns. The prosecutor said this way, with it as a noise ordinance, you’re fine. You’ll be perfectly fine. This will not affect your gun rights. Page – 11 – of 11 Evan Nappen 39:52 Now, this is a person who doesn’t have a lawyer. Who’s listening to the prosecutor, who is telling them they can plead this down to an ordinance. When the State’s key witness does not want to proceed and knows that the allegations that were made were not true and knows that it needs to be dropped. So, normally, the thing is, dismiss it straight out, because the complainant, the complaining witness, is not going to be real good for your case here. Okay? We all kind of see that, and it needs to go. But instead, the prosecutor is trying to convince this person to take this ordinance and pay a fine, get an ordinance hit, and saying that it won’t affect their gun rights. Evan Nappen 41:02 Here’s the deal, folks. It does affect your gun rights. You see, when a prosecutor says it doesn’t affect gun rights, that prosecutor is not representing you. They’re representing the State. They’re representing the Government. And if you don’t have counsel to explain to you the actual ramifications and you try to believe this, you know, however well intentioned it may have been, they failed to mention here that, yeah, it’s not a per se disqualifier, meaning, like being a convicted felon or having a conviction for domestic violence, sure, where you’re just out of the box. You’re done. But the reality in New Jersey is that if you plead to even this dopey ordinance for noise, you now have a conviction for an ordinance that started out as a domestic violence charge. Then when you try to apply to get a new pistol purchase permit or renew your carry permit or do a change of address on your Firearm’s ID Card, they go, oh, public health, safety, and welfare. That’s what they’re going to use to deny your application. Public health, safety, and welfare. Based on character, temperament. You know, I call that disqualifier the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause, because that’s where the abuse of discretion comes in. And if you were to fall for this, oh, plead to the ordinance, it won’t affect your gun rights. Wait and see. Because now that comes up on your record and it links to the original charges, those police reports and all. And you ended up taking a plea, which has this appearance that you were guilty of something, and that’s why you pled. It sure as hell can affect your gun rights. So, friends, the takeaway is this. The GOFU is when you’re dealing on any criminal charge, make sure you have counsel that understands the gun laws and don’t try to rely on what a prosecutor may be telling you about how your rights will or won’t be affected. Evan Nappen 43:20 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 43:30 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E277_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";

Today, Mel has one of the most powerful conversations you'll ever hear on this podcast. If you've been feeling overwhelmed, discouraged, exhausted, or numb by what you're seeing in the news, today's episode is for you. When life feels uncertain, it's easy to start pulling back, numbing out, and bracing for the next thing. You're not alone. That's why you need to hear from Mel's guest today, Bryan Stevenson. He is one of Mel's personal heroes, and he is the kind of human being who restores your faith in what's possible. Bryan is a world-renowned civil rights lawyer and author of Just Mercy, one of the most powerful books of our time, which was turned into a movie in which Michael B. Jordan played Bryan. He is the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and has argued and won cases before the United States Supreme Court. He has saved over 140 people from death row, many of whom were wrongly convicted, and his work has fundamentally transformed the conversation about justice, mercy, and human dignity. This is one of the most honest, compassionate, and uplifting conversations Mel has ever had with a guest, which is why today, Mel wanted to share again the conversation she had with him. You'll learn: -How to stay hopeful without denying reality -Why compassion is a form of courage -What resilience looks like when life is hard -How to find purpose and meaning by helping others -How to stop numbing out and start showing up again -How small actions create real change -Exactly what you can do in your community to make a difference Bryan is here to show you how to look deeper within yourself and to stand up even when the world is telling you to sit down.And in doing that, he'll remind you that hope might just be the most powerful gift you can give to the world, to other people, and to yourself.For more resources, click here for the podcast episode page. If you liked this episode, you'll love listening to this one next: Renew Your Spirit: 5 Ways I'm Finding Hope & Strength Right NowConnect with Mel:  Get Mel's #1 bestselling book, The Let Them TheoryWatch the episodes on YouTubeFollow Mel on Instagram The Mel Robbins Podcast InstagramMel's TikTok Sign up for Mel's personal letter Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes ad-freeDisclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.