Podcasts about united states supreme court

October 18, 2025; 8am: The provision was meant to protect voters from racial gerrymandering that weakens minority voting power. Many of the seats that could be affected are in the Deep South. — the very region the Voting Rights Act was written to protect. The outcome could shift as many as 19 House seats toward Republicans. Janai Nelson and Jelani Cobb join The Weekend to discuss the potential effects of the Supreme Court's decision.For more, follow us on social media:Bluesky: @theweekendmsnbc.bsky.socialInstagram: @theweekendmsnbcTikTok: @theweekendmsnbcTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Current events have led our dedicated host, Mike Slater, to confront the modern realities of physician-assisted suicides. Can MAGA be considered a "pro-life" movement if it allows this medical barbarism to continue? How do we handle this subject intelligently and gracefully when talking about it? All of this and more are covered in this powerful first segment!Following that opener, Mike speaks to Professor William Jacobson of Cornell School of Law about the most recent happenings with the United States Supreme Court. Don't miss out on this crucial info about the laws that will be impacting Americans like YOU in the future! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Shaun Peterson's “Lover of Men: The Untold History of Abraham Lincoln” goes beyond investigating the love live of the 16th U.S. President to examine how the study of history evolves (interviewed by Brian DeShazor, part 2 of 2). Plus: The “Rainbow Rewind” crosses generations to find outspoken October-born advocates and digs down to the roots of National Coming Out Day. And in NewsWrap: the United States Supreme Court hears the case of a Christian licensed therapist who says Colorado's conversion therapy ban violates her free speech rights, a volleyball league in Colombia's Antioquia region must reverse its ban on transgender competitors by order of the Constitutional Court, Florida's war on rainbow crosswalks continues with the bulldozing of an iconic installation on Ocean Drive in Miami Beach, embattled U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel fires a decorated FBI trainee is fired for displaying a rainbow flag on his desktop, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney bears Trump's anti-trans rant despite having a non-binary child, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Marcos Najera and Ret (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the October 13, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

This Day in Legal History: Supreme Court Denies Cert for RosenbergsOn October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage by passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The couple had been sentenced to death in 1951 following a high-profile trial that captivated Cold War-era America. The Rosenbergs' appeal was their final attempt to overturn the conviction and avoid execution. By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed their death sentences to stand without offering an opinion on the merits of the case.The decision intensified public debate over the fairness of their trial, with critics arguing that anti-communist hysteria had tainted the proceedings and supporters maintaining that the punishment fit the crime. Nearly a year later, on June 17, 1953, Justice William O. Douglas granted a temporary stay of execution after a new legal argument was raised involving the application of the Atomic Energy Act. However, the full Court reconvened in an emergency session and voted to vacate Douglas's stay the next day.The Rosenbergs were executed by electric chair at Sing Sing prison on June 19, 1953, marking the first and only time American civilians were executed for espionage during peacetime. Their case remains controversial, with questions still surrounding the extent of Ethel's involvement and the fairness of the trial. Over time, declassified documents, including material from the Venona project, have confirmed Julius's espionage activities but left lingering doubts about Ethel's role and the proportionality of her sentence.California enacted a new law (A.B. 931) that prohibits in-state lawyers and law firms from sharing contingency fees with out-of-state alternative business structures (ABS)—firms that are owned by non-lawyers. The bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, directly impacts litigation funding operations and firms based in states like Arizona, which began allowing non-lawyer ownership in 2021. Originally broader in scope, the bill was narrowed to specifically ban contingent fee sharing, a common payment model in mass tort and personal injury cases.The move is expected to disrupt partnerships between California lawyers and ABS firms in jurisdictions like Arizona, Utah, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Critics argue the law may harm both legal practitioners and consumers by limiting access to capital and cross-border collaboration. Amendments to the bill in August preserved certain flat fee and fixed fee arrangements, allowing some limited forms of financial collaboration to continue. KPMG, which recently launched a law firm in Arizona, declined to comment on whether the new restrictions would impact its plans to partner with attorneys nationwide.California Bans Contingent Fee Sharing With ‘Alternative' FirmsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency request to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, upholding a lower court's temporary block on the mobilization. The deployment plan included troops from the Texas National Guard, aimed at supporting federal agents during recent protests in the Chicago area. However, the court allowed those already present in Illinois to remain, pending further legal developments.U.S. District Judge April Perry had earlier questioned the administration's claims that troops were necessary to protect federal personnel from violent unrest, citing a lack of clear justification. Her order blocking the deployment is set to last until at least October 23, with the possibility of extension. Similar legal challenges are unfolding elsewhere, including in Oregon, where another judge blocked troop deployments to Portland. That ruling, however, may be overturned by a different appellate court.Democratic governors in affected states have argued that the administration exaggerated threats from largely peaceful protests to justify military action. A court in Los Angeles also ruled a previous deployment illegal, though that decision is on hold pending appeal. Under U.S. law, the National Guard typically operates under state control during domestic missions, making federal involvement a contentious legal issue.Appeals court rejects Trump request to deploy National Guard in Chicago area | ReutersFederal courts in New England—particularly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine—have emerged as strategic venues for legal challenges against President Donald Trump's policies since his return to office in January 2025. A Reuters analysis found at least 72 lawsuits targeting Trump's policies filed in these four states, with trial judges ruling against the administration in 46 out of 51 cases decided so far. These challenges include efforts to block the administration's actions on deportations, federal education cuts, changes to birthright citizenship, and fast-tracked deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan.The region's courts fall under the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has all five of its active judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Litigants see these courts as favorable due to their composition—17 of 20 active trial judges in the region are also Democratic appointees. Judges like William Young in Boston and Allison Burroughs have issued high-profile rulings against Trump, with Young warning of threats to constitutional values and Burroughs urging courts to defend free speech. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island has also issued significant decisions, such as blocking a sweeping federal funding freeze.While the 1st Circuit has mostly upheld lower court rulings against Trump, the Supreme Court—dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority—has stepped in multiple times to stay or reverse those decisions. Still, the administration has not appealed every ruling, allowing some key decisions to remain in place, including those affecting mail-in ballot rules and funding for arts groups and Head Start programs. Democratic attorneys general are actively choosing New England courts for their reliability, with one noting that “you kind of know what you're getting.”New England courts become a battleground for challenges to Trump | 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

Kentucky's attorney general sues a popular gaming platform for children, Kentucky's current congressional delegation reacts to the second anniversary of a Hamas attack on Israel, and a University of Kentucky constitutional law professor talks about a conversion therapy case before the United States Supreme Court and how he thinks the justices will rule.

Lots of work to do—lets get to it—Here are 3 big things for this hour—   Number One— The fight over birthright citizenship is now in front of the United States Supreme Court—and it could decide how the 14th Amendment is applied going forward—properly or still any child to be an American—   Number Two— Could we see some massive drops in interest rates this month? Maybe—because we have seen monthly payroll drop by 32,000 – the biggest since March of 2023—could be a red flag for the economy—   Number Three— As you know – The government has shutdown – thanks to the Democrat party's insistence that illegal aliens get healthcare – and other costly demands—

Virginia Robinson and her family moved to Camp Lejeune in 1959, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina. She raised her children there and dedicated 25 years of her life working on base, never knowing that the very place where she lived, worked, and built her family was slowly poisoning them. For decades, toxic chemicals such as PCE and TCE contaminated the water and air at Camp Lejeune. No one warned the families. And for Virginia, the consequences have been devastating. Virginia has endured a battle for her life that has spanned more than 40 years. She survived leukemia, colon cancer while pregnant, and two separate diagnoses of breast cancer. In 2023, she faced liver cancer, kidney cancer, and yet another fight with breast cancer, all at the same time. The tragedy has stretched across her family. Her husband passed away in 2014, her daughter followed just five months later, and her father developed Parkinson's. Her daughter was born with a spinal tumor and died young from bladder cancer. All of them were exposed to Camp Lejeune's poisoned water. Virginia's suffering has been relentless, but so has her courage. Out of five siblings, she was the only one plagued by repeated cancers. Despite loss, grief, and years of illness, she refuses to give up. “Camp Lejeune never told us the truth,” she has said, but she still believes she can win this fight for herself, for her family, and for every victim who was left in the dark. For decades, families like hers have been ignored, their pain dismissed, and their sacrifices forgotten. Ashley Keller is a founding partner of Keller Postman LLC and one of the nation's leading trial and appellate lawyers. At Keller Postman, he helps guide strategic direction across the firm's wide-ranging docket, which includes product liability, antitrust, class action, and arbitration matters. He is a recognized leader in product-liability litigation and currently serves as court-appointed co-lead counsel in the Acetaminophen multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of New York. Ashley also represents numerous states in antitrust litigation against Google, challenging its dominance in online display advertising. He has played a key role in the development of Keller Postman's arbitration practice, which has secured millions of dollars in settlements for employees and consumers nationwide. Before founding Keller Postman, Ashley co-founded Gerchen Keller Capital, which became the largest private investment manager focused on legal and regulatory risk. He was previously a partner at Bartlit Beck, where he litigated high-stakes securities, patent, and mass tort cases. Ashley clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, earned his M.B.A. from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and graduated first in his class from the University of Chicago Law School. Keller has been recognized as a Plaintiffs' Lawyers Trailblazer by the National Law Journal and has been listed among Lawdragon's 500 Leading Lawyers in America. He will be representing Virginia Robinson in her fight for justice in the Camp Lejeune case. With gratitude to our sponsors: RA Opticshttps://raoptics.com/bttpUse Code: BTTP-----Sky Horse Publishinghttps://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/-----Sign Uphttps://www.backtothepeople.net

Santa Clara Law is offering every admitted student a $16,000 scholarship to align tuition with the new federal loan cap for law school borrowers. Ben and Nathan discuss whether loan caps can rein in skyrocketing tuition, share wisdom from a departing Demon user, unpack the University of Miami's AI essay prompt, and offer reassurance to students stressed by LSAT scheduling woes.⁠Study with our Free Plan⁠⁠Download our iOS app⁠Watch Episode 526 on YouTube0:26 - Santa Clara ScholarshipsNathan and Ben react to Santa Clara Law's new PLEDGE scholarship, which effectively lowers tuition to just under the $50,000 federal loan cap. Borrowing limits are a step in the right direction for controlling law school costs.24:04 - Tips from a Departing DemonDemon student Abigail, who improved her LSAT from 159 to 176, offers a parting piece of advice: take breaks. She encourages students to let the material settle and give themselves time to recharge. Nathan and Ben highlight her success as proof that steady, balanced preparation works.28:34 - University of Miami AI Essay PromptDemon teacher Beatriz highlights Miami Law's unusual essay prompt that requires applicants to use generative AI. Nathan and Ben credit the school for recognizing AI's growing role in lawyering and suggest other schools should follow suit.36:06 - Scheduling Woes Strike AgainA Reddit user vents about not finding a time slot for the October LSAT. Nathan reassures students that LSAC always opens more seats.38:21 - Letters of RecommendationTwo listeners ask for advice on letters of recommendation:Morgan debates which supervisor to ask for a letter of recommendation. Ben and Nathan recommend choosing the one who knows Morgan best.Abo wonders if decade-old letters of recommendation can still be used to apply to law schools. The guys advise Abo to get updated letters.47:51 - “Should I Stay or School I Go?”An engineer is considering law school. Ben and Nathan encourage him to research the opportunities that patent law offers, but suggest that staying in engineering might lead to better career outcomes. 57:21 - What's the Deal with Detroit Mercy?Ben and Nathan investigate Detroit Mercy Law, which just got ABA approval for a fully online JD program. The guys explore what this approval could mean for legal education. They dig into the school's stats and highlight its Canadian–U.S. dual degree.1:15:35 - Personal Statement Gong ShowCody takes the stage on the Personal Statement Gong Show, chasing Sophia's record of 34 lines.1:33:39 - Word of the Week - Augur“The obligation to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment—under either constitution—does not encompass an obligation to augur an about-face by the United States Supreme Court.”Get caught up with our ⁠Word of the Week⁠⁠ library. 

Katie Phang is an independent journalist and trial lawyer. Formerly the host of “The Katie Phang Show” on MSNBC, Katie also has served as a legal contributor/legal correspondent for several media outlets, such as NBC, MSNBC, and Fox News. She's had a front-row seat to some of the most consequential moments in recent history, including the unsealing of multiple criminal indictments against Donald Trump, oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court on presidential immunity, and attending the only criminal trial of an American president. After several years in mainstream media, Katie departed cable tv to dive into independent media, launching her own YouTube channel (@katiephangnews) and Substack (@katiephang), leveraging her experience, including as a trial lawyer for more than 25 years, to provide compelling analysis and commentary on the latest legal and political issues across the globe. Katie shares her astute insights into Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department and overall assault on democracy; the Comey indictment; the Jimmy Kimmel debacle; Kamala Harris and her new book; the big Hegseth military gathering next week; and more. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

The U.S. Supreme Court has vastly reshaped American democracy — rolling back voting rights, enabling secret money in politics and expanding presidential power. These decisions have a real impact on all Americans by making it harder for citizens to exercise their freedom to vote, easier for wealthy interests to sway elections and more difficult to hold leaders accountable.In this episode, host Simone Leeper speaks with law professor and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast Leah Litman, Campaign Legal Center Senior Vice President Bruce V. Spiva and Campaign Legal Center Campaign Finance Senior Counsel David Kolker. Together, they unpack the real-world impact of landmark Supreme Court decisions — from voting rights cases like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC to campaign finance rulings like Citizens United — and explore what reforms could restore balance, accountability and trust in the Court.Timestamps:(00:05) — What do Americans really think about the Supreme Court?(02:18) — Why does the Supreme Court's power matter for democracy?(07:01) — How did Shelby County v. Holder weaken voting rights?(16:39) — What was the impact of Brnovich v. DNC?(23:39) — How has the Supreme Court reshaped campaign finance?(29:24) — Why did Citizens United open the floodgates for money in politics?(32:37) — How have super PACs changed elections?(34:02) — How have wealthy special interests reshaped U.S. elections?(35:44) — What does presidential immunity mean for accountability?(37:30) — How do lifetime seats protect the Supreme Court from accountability?(39:22) — What role can Congress play in restoring trust and democracy?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Leah Litman is a professor of law at the University of Michigan and a former Supreme Court clerk. In addition to cohosting Strict Scrutiny, she writes frequently about the Court for media outlets including The Washington Post, Slate, and The Atlantic, among others, and has appeared as a commentator on NPR and MSNBC, in addition to other venues. She has received the Ruth Bader Ginsburg award for her “scholarly excellence” from the American Constitution Society and published in top law reviews. Follow her on Bluesky @LeahLitman and Instagram @ProfLeahLitman.Bruce V. Spiva is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He is an attorney and community leader who has spent his over 30-year career fighting for civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, consumer protection, and antitrust enforcement.Over the past three decades, he has tried cases and argued appeals in courtrooms across the country, including arguing against vote suppression in the United States Supreme Court in 2021. In 2022, in his first run for public office, Bruce mounted a competitive run in the primary election for Washington, D.C. Attorney General. In addition to founding his own law firm where he practiced for eleven years, Bruce has held several leadership and management positions as a partner at two national law firms. Most recently, Bruce served as the Managing Partner of the D.C. Office and on the firm-wide Executive Committee of Perkins Coie LLP, where he also had an active election law practice. He first-chaired twelve voting rights and redistricting trials across the country, and argued numerous voting rights appeals in U.S. circuit courts and state supreme courts during his tenure at Perkins. David Kolker is Campaign Finance Senior Counsel at Campaign Legal Center. He focuses on both short- and long-term strategies to improve campaign finance laws across the country, and precedent interpreting those laws. David has spent decades litigating cases in both the public and private sectors. He worked for nearly 20 years at the Federal Election Commission, where he litigated cases on federal campaign finance law and for several years led the agency's Litigation Division. He represented the government in dozens of oral arguments, including the government's defense in SpeechNow.org v. FEC before the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc. He litigated many cases decided by the Supreme Court, including the landmark cases of McConnell v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC. David joined CLC from the Federal Communications Commission, where he served as the deputy bureau chief, Enforcement Bureau. He previously was a partner at the law firm Spiegel and McDiarmid in Washington. Early in his career, David worked as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Links:The Supreme Court Needs to Start Standing Up for Democracy – CLCThe Supreme Court's Role in Undermining American Democracy  – CLCSupreme Court's Impact on Voting Rights Is a Threat to Democracy  – CLCWhy the Current U.S. Supreme Court Is a Threat to Our Democracy  – CLCU.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Illegal Virginia Voter Purge at the Eleventh Hour – CLCWhat Does the U.S. Supreme Court's Recent Arizona Decision Mean for Voters? – CLCAlito Flags the Fatal Flaw of the Supreme Court Ethics Code – CLCU.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Illegal Virginia Voter Purge at the Eleventh Hour – CLCImproving Ethics Standards at the Supreme Court – CLCSupreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules – The HillU.S. Supreme Court Significantly Limits Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLCCampaign Legal Center Responds to SCOTUS Ruling Limiting Court Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLCProtecting the Promise of American Citizenship – CLCBringing the Fight for Fair Voting Maps to the U.S. Supreme Court – CLCThe Supreme Court Must Uphold Fair Voting Maps for Fair Representation – CLCAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Sworn in to SCOTUSOn September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, breaking a 191-year gender barrier in the nation's highest judicial body. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, O'Connor's appointment fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote. A former Arizona state senator and judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, O'Connor brought to the bench a pragmatic approach rooted in her Western upbringing and legislative experience.Her arrival on the Court was not merely symbolic—it signaled a shift in the perception of women in positions of legal authority and reshaped the public's view of judicial legitimacy. Though she identified as a moderate conservative, O'Connor quickly became a pivotal swing vote in many closely contested cases. Her jurisprudence favored case-by-case balancing over rigid ideological lines, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and religious liberty.In the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decision, O'Connor co-authored the controlling opinion that reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, while allowing for certain state regulations. She also cast decisive votes in cases involving Title IX, voting rights, and the Establishment Clause. Her influence was especially pronounced in a Court that, during much of her tenure, was deeply divided ideologically.O'Connor's presence helped pave the way for future female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her swearing-in marked not just the inclusion of a woman's voice on the bench, but a redefinition of judicial neutrality and consensus-building. O'Connor retired in 2006, but her legacy remains foundational to the evolution of the modern Supreme Court and its relationship to gender and law.Apple Inc. and US Bank have both exited enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) years earlier than originally scheduled. The terminations, posted on the CFPB's website, end the agency's oversight of their compliance with prior settlements. Apple was previously penalized, along with Goldman Sachs, for misleading Apple Card customers and mishandling service issues, resulting in a combined $89 million in penalties and restitution. Though Apple had been subject to five years of compliance monitoring, that obligation was lifted after less than one year. Goldman Sachs remains under CFPB monitoring.US Bank faced enforcement in 2023 for freezing unemployment benefit accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic and was required to pay $20.7 million in penalties and customer redress. Its five-year monitoring period has also ended prematurely. These terminations follow a recent trend of the CFPB closing enforcement cases early, including those involving Navy Federal Credit Union and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., as the agency braces for budget-related staffing reductions. The CFPB, Apple, and US Bank have not commented publicly on the decisions.Apple, US Bank Latest to Exit CFPB Enforcement Actions EarlyThe U.S. Department of Justice is continuing its investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud, reportedly following pressure from President Donald Trump. The probe, led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin, is based in the Eastern District of Virginia and focuses on whether James misrepresented her residence status on mortgage applications. The case originated from a referral by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, though James denies any wrongdoing.The investigation had previously stalled after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney overseeing the matter, concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to press charges. Siebert resigned last week amid internal pressure, and was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned attorney recently sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Trump intensified calls for action with a now-deleted Truth Social post demanding prosecution.Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appointed Martin as a special attorney, has publicly supported continuing the investigation. Her office emphasized that the case was ongoing and not being reopened, signaling a firm stance on pursuing alleged fraud against the government. Halligan, formerly Trump's lawyer in his classified documents case, has not commented on the James probe.Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Probe Is Moving Ahead at DOJ (1)Two Black men, Alan Swanson and Willie Bennett, have received a combined $150,000 settlement from the city of Boston after being wrongly accused in a 1989 murder case that intensified racial tensions. The case involved the killing of Carol Stuart, a pregnant white woman, whose husband falsely claimed they had been abducted by a Black man. Swanson and Bennett were arrested and publicly identified as suspects, though they were never formally charged. The husband later took his own life after his story unraveled, and his brother admitted to helping hide the murder weapon.Bennett will receive $100,000, and Swanson will receive $50,000. In 2023, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu formally apologized to both men following renewed public attention from the HBO series Murder in Boston, which revisited the case and its racially charged aftermath. The episode remains a painful example of how institutional bias and racial profiling distorted justice and harmed innocent people.The settlement also reflects broader efforts by U.S. cities to confront historic injustices in the wake of national reckoning following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.Black men wrongly linked to 1989 Boston murder get $150,000 settlement | ReutersThe Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a proposal that would have allowed individuals without full law licenses to represent or prosecute criminal defendants after completing a shortened training path. The plan, developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, aimed to address attorney shortages in rural areas and ease the burden on public defender and prosecutor offices by offering a faster, more affordable route to limited criminal practice. Participants would have undergone two semesters of criminal law classes, a nine-month supervised practice period, and passed a specialized exam.However, the proposal faced strong opposition from prosecutors and public defenders, who warned it could lower public confidence in indigent defense, depress pay rates, and lead to constitutional challenges. Critics also argued the plan might reinforce negative perceptions about the quality of representation for low-income defendants.Arizona already allows non-lawyers to perform limited legal work in areas like family and landlord-tenant law, but this proposal would have been the first to extend that model into criminal defense. The state will continue exploring alternative licensing routes, such as the Lawyer Apprentice Program, which offers a path to licensure for law graduates who fail the bar exam by placing them in supervised legal work for two years.Arizona nixes fast-track lawyer licensing plan for criminal cases | 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 episode seven of NAWL's Bridging Divides series, NAWL member Marlow Svatek speaks with Kelly Kribs, Attorney at the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights, about the organization's mission and its work supporting immigrant children. They examine the 2018 family separation crisis, its lasting impact, and the reemergence of similar policies today. This episode highlights the legal and emotional consequences of child separation, the importance of mental health for advocates, and practical ways legal professionals can support immigrant families. Don't miss this urgent and inspiring dialogue at the intersection of immigration, justice, and child welfare. Learn more about the Young Center and explore how YOU can make a meaningful impact in the immigration space today: Young Center Speaker Bios:  Kelly Albinak Kribs is a Co-Director for the Young Center's Technical Assistance Program, which offers case consultation, connection to resources, training, and mentorship to attorneys and professionals working with immigrant children impacted by the domestic child welfare system. Kelly first joined the Young Center in 2016 and previously served as the Managing Attorney of the Child Advocate Program team in the Chicago office. In her time at the Young Center, Kelly has drawn upon principles of child welfare, international, and immigration law in order to evaluate and execute best interests advocacy on behalf of unaccompanied and separated immigrant children on matters of their care, custody, reunification, safe repatriation, and legal relief. She has collaborated closely with social worker colleagues to help develop an interdisciplinary approach to assessing best interests as well as best practices for child-centered, developmentally appropriate, and trauma-informed engagement with immigrant children. Before joining the Young Center, she worked in private practice and clerked for a federal district court judge. She received her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School and her undergraduate degree in communications from Northwestern University. Prior to attending law school, Kelly worked at a research center on Latin American issues and taught English in Nicaragua. She first began serving as a volunteer child advocate with the Young Center in 2008. Marlow Svatek is an associate in Barack Ferrazzano's litigation group, where her practice spans a variety of substantive areas, including consumer class actions, business disputes, and securities and shareholder derivative matters. Marlow has extensive experience drafting dispositive motions and appellate briefs, managing discovery, taking depositions, preparing fact and expert witnesses for deposition and trial, and trying cases in court and before arbitration tribunals.Prior to joining Barack Ferrazzano, Marlow was a litigation associate at Sidley Austin in Chicago. She clerked for the Honorable Judge Joel M. Flaum on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in California. Before becoming an attorney, Marlow was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Burkina Faso.Marlow also maintains an active pro bono practice. She has successfully obtained asylum for several individuals in deportation proceedings. Marlow was also the lead associate on the impact litigation team challenging the Department of Homeland Security's “public charge” rule, in which she successfully argued several motions in the district court and led multiple rounds of briefing in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court, ultimately obtaining a nationwide vacatur of the challenged rule. In recognition of her outstanding pro bono service in protection of immigrant rights, Marlow was named a “Rising Star” by the National Immigrant Justice Center in 2020 and received the Award for Excellence in Public Interest Service from the Judges of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.Outside of her practice, Marlow is dedicated to promoting pro bono work and the advancement of women lawyers in the profession. She previously served as Chair of the Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI) Alumni Network Leadership Council and as a writer-in-residence for Ms. JD. She is also on the Annual Meeting Host Committee for the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL). 

Mark Anthony Psychic Explorer (also known as The Psychic Lawyer) is a fourth generation psychic medium who communicates with spirits. He is an Oxford-educated attorney licensed to practice law in Florida, Washington D.C., and before the United States Supreme Court. This Psychic Explorer travels to mystical locations in remote corners of the world to examine Ancient Mysteries and Supernatural Phenomena. Mark appears nationwide on TV and Radio including CBS TV's “The Doctors,” and Gaia TV's “Beyond Belief with George Noory.” He is the co-host of “The Psychic and the Doc” on the Transformation Network. He is a featured speaker at conferences, expos and universities which include Brown, Columbia, Harvard and Yale. Mark Anthony is a columnist for “Best Holistic Life Magazine.” He is the author of The Afterlife Frequency. His other bestselling books are Never Letting Go and Evidence of Eternity. Visit Mark's website: www.AfterlifeFrequency.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.We are proud to announce the we have launched TWATNews.com, launched in August 2025.TWATNews.com is an independent online news platform dedicated to uncovering the truth about Donald Trump and his ongoing influence in politics, business, and society. Unlike mainstream outlets that often sanitize, soften, or ignore stories that challenge Trump and his allies, TWATNews digs deeper to deliver hard-hitting articles, investigative features, and sharp commentary that mainstream media won't touch.These are stories and articles that you will not read anywhere else.Our mission is simple: to expose corruption, lies, and authoritarian tendencies while giving voice to the perspectives and evidence that are often marginalized or buried by corporate-controlled media. 

The infamous Epstein birthday book is now in the hands of Congress and the page allegedly from President Trump is now public. Plus, the United States Supreme Court is allowing roving immigration patrols to continue in Los Angeles as the Trump administration launches a new operation in Chicago. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Host David From continues the story of Marlena Pavlos-Hackney, a Michigan restaurant owner who refused to close during the pandemic after the state's first round of executive orders was ruled unconstitutional. Joined by her attorney, Helen Brinkman, Marlena recounts being singled out by state leadership, arrested, fined, and jailed—despite unequal enforcement and conflicting rulings—after she chose to keep serving her community. Brinkman walks through the legal maze: administrative suspensions, contempt findings, and split decisions that could set a statewide precedent on executive power, due process, and equal protection. Together they explain why Marlena's case now aims for the United States Supreme Court—and why the outcome matters for every Michigander who expects leaders to follow the same rules they impose on the people.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by Partner and Chair of WilmerHale's Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice Seth Waxman and Counsel Zaki Anwar to discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case concerns Richard Glossip, who has been on death row since 1998 on a first-degree murder charge. The team arguing on his behalf in front of Court, which included Waxman and Anwar, successfully argued that Glossip's sentence should be reversed and the state of Oklahoma should be allowed to retry his case.Waxman and Anwar walk through each step of the case, outlining the complex procedural history that has taken place over the course of nearly thirty years. They emphasize the significance of the case for due process and other capital cases in the future, and what it reflects about the current Court's ideologies when it comes to serious criminal convictions.

Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court voted to make same-sex marriage legal by five votes to four. Since then the court has reversed one landmark ruling by overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision that established a right to abortion under federal law. With divisions in attitudes to gay marriages and relationships increasing - could the court rethink its decision on gay marriage?This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuest: Matilda Davies, data journalist, The Times and Sunday Times. Host: Luke Jones. Producer: Shabnam Grewal.Read more: Why is gay marriage losing US support — and are bans looming?Clips: @hrcmedia, Retroreport.org, CBS, USA TODAY, NBC,ABC, NOW THIS IMPACT, ALLSHEWROTESBOOKS.COM.Photo: Gettyimages.Get in touch: thestory@thetimes.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Some states in our nation are "coming apart at the seams" as they've capitulated to an agenda that's contrary to biblical authority and morality. Texas, however, is fighting this trend. Providing details was Jonathan Saenz. He's president and attorney for Texas Values, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving and advancing a culture of family values in the state of Texas. Prior to leading Texas Values, Jonathan headed the First Liberty Institute offices in Austin where he served as Director of Legislative Affairs as well as Attorney for First Liberty Institute. He's been involved in numerous court cases including those before the Texas Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court. Jim had Jonathan comment on numerous issues including: The Texas heartbeat law, Men invading women's sports (The Save Women's Sports Act and the Texas Women's Privacy Act), chemical abortion drugs, prayer in public schools, and more. Find out how Texas is handling these issues, learn about the Texas Faith Fest, and how you can make a difference in your state, on this edition of Crosstalk.

Some states in our nation are "coming apart at the seams" as they've capitulated to an agenda that's contrary to biblical authority and morality. Texas, however, is fighting this trend. Providing details was Jonathan Saenz. He's president and attorney for Texas Values, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving and advancing a culture of family values in the state of Texas. Prior to leading Texas Values, Jonathan headed the First Liberty Institute offices in Austin where he served as Director of Legislative Affairs as well as Attorney for First Liberty Institute. He's been involved in numerous court cases including those before the Texas Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court. Jim had Jonathan comment on numerous issues including: The Texas heartbeat law, Men invading women's sports (The Save Women's Sports Act and the Texas Women's Privacy Act), chemical abortion drugs, prayer in public schools, and more. Find out how Texas is handling these issues, learn about the Texas Faith Fest, and how you can make a difference in your state, on this edition of Crosstalk.

In the Public Interest is excited to present its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by WilmerHale Counsel Joey Meyer to discuss Mahmoud v. Taylor, which concerns the constitutional rights of parents who send their children to public school to opt their children out of lessons that may be at odds with their religious beliefs. WilmerHale represented the appellee in the decision.Together, Meyer and Ellsworth cover the background of the case and the implications of the Court's ruling on issues like parental rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedoms. Meyer also shares additional context from his experience as one of the WilmerHale lawyers who helped secure a victory for the public schools in the Fourth Circuit before going on to help represent them before the Supreme Court.

We're back at a weird time and night because life happens! But here we are nontheless. Tonight we discuss the dangers of pickles, fed courts saying you can have a little more freedom, expensive posters, a farming family win, America giving the middle finger to Europe, the importance of parking brakes, and whatever else we stumble into!https://linktr.ee/anarchyamongfriendsAndrew's YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuYw7aFnaJBc8F6NCn-CKg/videos"InkedAnarchist15" for 15% off at https://www.thebeardstruggle.com/?rfsn=4064657.9a3f66&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=4064657.9a3f66https://www.reaperapparelco.com/?ref=52cju0Cb Or use "InkedAnarchist" at checkout and get 10% off.Dubby Energy Discount! - https://www.dubby.gg/discount/InkedAnarchist?ref=jwtimwuiJeremy at The Quartering's 'Coffee Brand Coffee': https://coffeebrandcoffee.com/?ref=eryobzq3Poppins Patches - https://www.facebook.com/poppinspatches or poppinspatches.com Anarchy Among Friends Telegram - https://t.me/AAFRTDAnarchy Among Friends Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/ValhallarchistSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0pqbeHBmWPN1sG0e6L28UvPodbean - https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/8yy6n-c5c4e/Anarchy-Among-Friends-PodcastApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anarchy-among-friends/id1459037636?ign-mpt=uo%3D4Stitcher - https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/anarchy-among-friendsGooglePodcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNGZmNzQwL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNzBreaker - https://www.breaker.audio/anarchy-among-friendsOvercast - https://overcast.fm/itunes1459037636/anarchy-among-friendsPocketCasts - https://pca.st/CDH3RadioPublic - https://radiopublic.com/anarchy-among-friends-WkzzjlBrandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio THIS PODCAST IS COVERED BY A BipCot NoGov LICENSE. USE AND RE-USE BY ANYONE EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS OR THEIR AGENTS IS OK. MORE INFO: https://bipcot.org/The importance of parking brakes - https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/man-26-woman-41-die-172215088.htmlFarmer FTW - https://www.agweb.com/news/business/family-farm-wins-historic-case-after-feds-violate-constitution-and-ruin-businessPickles Are A Clear and Present Danger… https://www.wmur.com/article/manchester-cease-and-desist-pickles-08202025/65855381Masters say maybe you can have more freedom, as a treat - https://reason.com/2025/08/25/the-11th-circuit-revives-a-constitutional-challenge-to-the-federal-law-that-disarms-medical-marijuana-patients/27 Grand On POSTERS - https://reason.com/2025/08/11/congress-spent-at-least-27500-on-poster-displays-in-2-months-here-are-4-ridiculous-examples-and-1-good-one/Farming family finally vindicated - https://www.agweb.com/news/business/family-farm-wins-historic-case-after-feds-violate-constitution-and-ruin-businessBig Tech told not to apply Europe's DSA - https://share.google/owNk8QalYMRefifQ5End of duty free personal imports thanks to Trump -https://share.google/sovZ3POfJr6Whk4IB

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs, describing what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis. "Law is [indeed] spiritual" as the Apostle Paul wrote.

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs along with what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs, describing what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis. "Law is [indeed] spiritual" as the Apostle Paul wrote.

John Marshall arrived at Campbell in the fall of 1980 from his home in Henderson, N.C., to join a golf team that was in its early years of competing at the NCAA Division I level. While competing under three different head coaches, John not only helped lay the groundwork for what would become a mid-major college golf powerhouse program, but he also discovered a career path. He graduated in 1984, and soon after enrolled in Campbell's Law School. He has been practicing law since 1989 and in the fall of 2023 was sworn into the United States Supreme Court bar. John also is a member of Campbell's AD's Advisory Board and actively supports his alma mater's athletics program. In the next episode of Tales from the Creek, Fighting Camel golf standout John Marshall talks with Stan Cole about golf, his path to Campbell and later to law school, raising a family, playing the guitar, his career journey, and much more.

And welcome to the program on your Wednesday afternoon. So glad to have you. And we're just gonna jump in. Oh, by the way, Bill Ryan, the new, I guess, sheriff elect of Spartanburg County, so to speak, will be, on the program with us at 04:06 this afternoon. But right now, we're being joined by attorney general Alan Wilson. Attorney general, welcome to the program. Hope you're doing well. Hey, Charlie. It's great to be on your, show again. Thanks for having me back, sir. I appreciate. First, we're gonna talk to the attorney general, then we're gonna talk to the candidate for governor. Okay? Okay. Sounds good. I can hold on. Let me put that hat on. I got my AG hat on. Look at that. That's perfect. Now you sent out a, a press release the other day. You know, school has just started back all over the Upstate, and you have this, issue, on parental rights guide. Tell us a little bit about that and and what all it entails. Well, Charlie, with kids going back to school, it's important for parents to be reminded of what their rights are as it relates to the care, education, and rearing of their own children. And, a couple of things have happened in the recent weeks that have kinda prompted us to put this out, and I'll get to that momentarily. Okay. But, basically, parents need to be reminded that you have a right to be involved in the, the the raising of your children. This has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. You have a right and the responsibility to be involved in your child's education. Any teacher, any school that does anything to undermine that is wrong and acting out of concert with the law. In fact, the general assembly even passed a parental involvement in their children's education act, which seeks to encourage the establishment and maintenance of parent friendly school settings. Parents have basic rights. You have the right to teach your child your own belief and value system. You have a right to believe. Any attempts by teachers or school districts to violate those beliefs, like requiring students or, to, you know, use preferred pronouns Right. Or forcing students to affirm pronouns or genders of other kids against the values of that family, that they don't have the right to do that. You have the right to know that your child is safe at school. Obviously, the general assembly passed a law prohibiting boys from going into girls' private spaces and vice versa. The fourth circuit court of appeals just enjoined that law to allow a transgender student into the opposite sex, personal space. You know, there are there are kids across this country who have been sexually assaulted by members of the opposite sex. Right. Your children have a right to be safe in schools, and as a parent, you have a right to know that your child is being protected. And that is why I'm going to the United States Supreme Court on defending South Carolina's law. You have the right to, to, read, or you have the right for your children to only have access to age appropriate materials in their school libraries. And you have the right to know who is teaching your children, the backgrounds of teachers, as well as what they're teaching your children. Recently in Dorchester County, there was a teacher posting Yep. Violent, extremist, gory stuff on social media, and this is an elementary school teacher. That teacher was suspended. But you have the right to know who was handling the most precious thing in your life, and that is your own child. So these are basic fundamental and constitutional rights that parents have in this office and I as the attorney general and as a future governor, we'll talk about that in a minute, will defend us to my dying breath. And and that's it. I mean, when you look at some of this stuff that that teacher down in Georgia, Chester County was, was publishing and putting out on social media, I mean, you have to sit there and go, oh my gosh. How did that person even even get hired to begin with? That is the qu ...

And welcome to the program on your Wednesday afternoon. So glad to have you. And we're just gonna jump in. Oh, by the way, Bill Ryan, the new, I guess, sheriff elect of Spartanburg County, so to speak, will be, on the program with us at 04:06 this afternoon. But right now, we're being joined by attorney general Alan Wilson. Attorney general, welcome to the program. Hope you're doing well. Hey, Charlie. It's great to be on your, show again. Thanks for having me back, sir. I appreciate. First, we're gonna talk to the attorney general, then we're gonna talk to the candidate for governor. Okay? Okay. Sounds good. I can hold on. Let me put that hat on. I got my AG hat on. Look at that. That's perfect. Now you sent out a, a press release the other day. You know, school has just started back all over the Upstate, and you have this, issue, on parental rights guide. Tell us a little bit about that and and what all it entails. Well, Charlie, with kids going back to school, it's important for parents to be reminded of what their rights are as it relates to the care, education, and rearing of their own children. And, a couple of things have happened in the recent weeks that have kinda prompted us to put this out, and I'll get to that momentarily. Okay. But, basically, parents need to be reminded that you have a right to be involved in the, the the raising of your children. This has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. You have a right and the responsibility to be involved in your child's education. Any teacher, any school that does anything to undermine that is wrong and acting out of concert with the law. In fact, the general assembly even passed a parental involvement in their children's education act, which seeks to encourage the establishment and maintenance of parent friendly school settings. Parents have basic rights. You have the right to teach your child your own belief and value system. You have a right to believe. Any attempts by teachers or school districts to violate those beliefs, like requiring students or, to, you know, use preferred pronouns Right. Or forcing students to affirm pronouns or genders of other kids against the values of that family, that they don't have the right to do that. You have the right to know that your child is safe at school. Obviously, the general assembly passed a law prohibiting boys from going into girls' private spaces and vice versa. The fourth circuit court of appeals just enjoined that law to allow a transgender student into the opposite sex, personal space. You know, there are there are kids across this country who have been sexually assaulted by members of the opposite sex. Right. Your children have a right to be safe in schools, and as a parent, you have a right to know that your child is being protected. And that is why I'm going to the United States Supreme Court on defending South Carolina's law. You have the right to, to, read, or you have the right for your children to only have access to age appropriate materials in their school libraries. And you have the right to know who is teaching your children, the backgrounds of teachers, as well as what they're teaching your children. Recently in Dorchester County, there was a teacher posting Yep. Violent, extremist, gory stuff on social media, and this is an elementary school teacher. That teacher was suspended. But you have the right to know who was handling the most precious thing in your life, and that is your own child. So these are basic fundamental and constitutional rights that parents have in this office and I as the attorney general and as a future governor, we'll talk about that in a minute, will defend us to my dying breath. And and that's it. I mean, when you look at some of this stuff that that teacher down in Georgia, Chester County was, was publishing and putting out on social media, I mean, you have to sit there and go, oh my gosh. How did that person even even get hired to begin with? That is the qu ...

And welcome to the program on your Wednesday afternoon. So glad to have you. And we're just gonna jump in. Oh, by the way, Bill Ryan, the new, I guess, sheriff elect of Spartanburg County, so to speak, will be, on the program with us at 04:06 this afternoon. But right now, we're being joined by attorney general Alan Wilson. Attorney general, welcome to the program. Hope you're doing well. Hey, Charlie. It's great to be on your, show again. Thanks for having me back, sir. I appreciate it. First, we're gonna talk to the attorney general, then we're gonna talk to the candidate for governor. Okay? Okay. Sounds good. I can let me put that hat on. I got my AG hat I looked at. That's perfect. Now you sent out a, a press release the other day. You know, school has just started back all over the Upstate, and you have this, issue, on parental rights guide. Tell us a little bit about that and and what all it entails. Well, Charlie, with kids going back to school, it's important for parents to be reminded of what their rights are as it relates to the care, education, and rearing of their own children. And, a couple of things have happened in the recent weeks that have kinda prompted us to put this out, and I'll get to that momentarily. Okay. But, basically, parents need to be reminded that you have a right to be involved in the, the the raising of your children. This has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. You have a right and the responsibility to be involved in your child's education. Any teacher, any school that does anything to undermine that is wrong in acting out of concert with the law. In fact, the general assembly even passed a parental involvement in their children's education act, which seeks to encourage the establishment and maintenance of parent friendly school settings. Parents have basic rights. You have the right to teach your child your own belief and value system. You have a right to believe. Any attempts by teachers or school districts to violate those beliefs, like requiring students or, to, you know, use preferred pronouns Right. Or forcing students to affirm pronouns or genders of other kids against the values of that family, but they don't have the right to do that. You have the right to know that your child is safe at school. Obviously, the general assembly passed a law prohibiting boys from going into girls' private spaces and vice versa. The fourth circuit court of appeals just enjoined that law to allow a transgender student into the opposite sex, personal space. You know, there are there are kids across this country who have been sexually assaulted by members of the opposite sex. Right. Your children have a right to be safe in schools. And as a parent, you have a right to know that your child is being protected. And that is why I'm going to the United States Supreme Court on defending South Carolina's law. You have the right to, to, read, or you have the right for your children to only have access to age appropriate materials in their school libraries. And you have the right to know who is teaching your children, the backgrounds of teachers, as well as what they're teaching your children. Recently in Dorchester County, there was a teacher posting violent, extremist, gory stuff on social media, and this is an elementary school teacher. That teacher was suspended. But you have the right to know who was handling the most precious thing in your life, and that is your own child. So these are basic fundamental and constitutional rights that parents have in this office and I as the attorney general and as a future governor, we'll talk about that in a minute, will defend those to my dying breath. And and that's it. I mean, when you look at some of this stuff that that teacher down in Georgia, Chester County was, was publishing and putting out on social media, I mean, you have to sit there and go, oh my gosh. How did that person even even get hired to begin with? That is the question that we' ...

Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy involving the grooming and abuse of underage girls alongside Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition for a writ of certiorari, Maxwell's legal team argues that her trial was marred by significant constitutional violations, including improper jury selection procedures, the denial of a venue change despite intense pretrial publicity, and flawed evidentiary rulings. Her attorneys assert that these alleged errors compromised her right to a fair trial, and they emphasize that the lower courts failed to correct these issues on appeal. One key argument raised is the court's refusal to grant relief after it was discovered that a juror failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell's team claims tainted the integrity of the verdict.Maxwell's legal team also argues that the Second Circuit's interpretation of federal sex trafficking laws was overly broad and threatens to criminalize conduct beyond the intended scope of the statute. The petition stresses that the Supreme Court should take up the case not only to address the errors specific to Maxwell's trial, but to clarify important legal questions that could impact future defendants nationwide. Her lawyers frame the petition as a critical moment for the high court to ensure fairness in high-profile criminal proceedings and to prevent the miscarriage of justice in cases driven by public outrage and media spectacle. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will agree to hear the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jailed child sex abuse offender Ghislaine Maxwell asks US Supreme Court to hear appeal against her conviction | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: First SCOTUS DecisionOn August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court's willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court's entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump's energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump's priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump's first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country's largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner's promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, PowerA closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump's June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump's authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president's power to use military forces domestically.Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | ReutersU.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump's trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry's Financial Index score hit 55, up four points from Q1, but the report warned of risks ahead as overhead costs climb, collections dip, and productivity lags 1.3% year-over-year. Unpaid bills and write-downs could create further financial pressure if trends persist. Law firms stayed busy in second quarter but uncertainty looms - report | ReutersThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to terminate its labor contract with the union representing 8,000 of its employees, according to the union's president. The action is part of President Trump's broader push to limit collective bargaining rights across federal agencies. Trump's March executive order seeks to remove such rights at more than 30 agencies, including the EPA, and is being challenged in court by unions that argue it violates free speech and bargaining obligations. The EPA says it is acting in compliance with the order, which would make it easier for agencies to discipline or dismiss workers. The move comes as the EPA plans to reduce its workforce by at least 23% and close its scientific research office as part of broader federal downsizing. Unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, are suing to stop the effort, but a recent federal appeals court decision allowed the administration to proceed with exempting some agencies from negotiating with unions. The union representing EPA employees has pledged a legal response.Trump's environment agency terminates contract with unionized employees | 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

It's that time again! Tonight we have a few important updates on stories we covered a while back, Wisconsin going full prison industrial complex, the 6th Circuit not understanding the 2A while the Minn SC apparently sort of does, Andrew raging like a drunken barbarian, attack bees, and whatever else we stumble into!https://linktr.ee/anarchyamongfriendshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UHMuv3q4gAndrew's YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuYw7aFnaJBc8F6NCn-CKg/videos"InkedAnarchist15" for 15% off at https://www.thebeardstruggle.com/?rfsn=4064657.9a3f66&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=4064657.9a3f66https://www.reaperapparelco.com/?ref=52cju0Cb Or use "InkedAnarchist" at checkout and get 10% off.Dubby Energy Discount! - https://www.dubby.gg/discount/InkedAnarchist?ref=jwtimwuiJeremy at The Quartering's 'Coffee Brand Coffee': https://coffeebrandcoffee.com/?ref=eryobzq3Poppins Patches - https://www.facebook.com/poppinspatches or poppinspatches.com Anarchy Among Friends Telegram - https://t.me/AAFRTDAnarchy Among Friends Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/ValhallarchistSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0pqbeHBmWPN1sG0e6L28UvPodbean - https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/8yy6n-c5c4e/Anarchy-Among-Friends-PodcastApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anarchy-among-friends/id1459037636?ign-mpt=uo%3D4Stitcher - https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/anarchy-among-friendsGooglePodcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNGZmNzQwL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNzBreaker - https://www.breaker.audio/anarchy-among-friendsOvercast - https://overcast.fm/itunes1459037636/anarchy-among-friendsPocketCasts - https://pca.st/CDH3RadioPublic - https://radiopublic.com/anarchy-among-friends-WkzzjlBrandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio THIS PODCAST IS COVERED BY A BipCot NoGov LICENSE. USE AND RE-USE BY ANYONE EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS OR THEIR AGENTS IS OK. MORE INFO: https://bipcot.org/Wisconsin PIC -https://www.weau.com/2025/08/06/wisconsin-bill-could-lead-more-people-behind-bars/(Update) Bundy Denied Bankruptcy -https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/ammon-bundy-cannot-file-bankruptcy-avoid-52-million-defamation-bill/277-d94e2f42-5bc4-43c7-992c-c602aed630ee(Update) Vet's Lawsuit -https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/crime/federal-judge-allows-veterans-lawsuit-to-continue/275-7961253a-8337-4829-a10f-4ccd8c82adef(Update) P'Nut -https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/peanut-the-squirrels-owners-are-suing-the-state-of-new-york-for-10-million-3236240/Attack Bees! -https://www.wwlp.com/news/crime/arrest-warrant-issued-for-hadley-woman-who-unleashed-bees-on-deputies/He's Working Through Some Stuff -https://nypost.com/2025/08/05/world-news/naked-man-in-balaclava-carrying-sex-toy-on-a-stick-terrifies-tourists/Machineguns - https://www.courthousenews.com/sixth-circuit-says-second-amendment-doesnt-cover-machine-guns/Vet - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14981257/boston-lawmaker-halts-meeting-veterans-suicide-offensive-phrase.htmlDo Not Anger The Yauguai - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14974577/colorado-residents-shock-bears-manhole-sidewalk.htmlMedicine(?) -https://local12.com/news/local/local-doctor-convicted-of-practicing-medicine-without-a-license-for-home-genital-exams-rudel-saunders-cincinnati-ultrasounds-home-apartment-trainingGhost Guns -https://www.fox9.com/news/most-ghost-guns-legal-minnesota-supreme-court-rules-august-6Stooges - https://nypost.com/2025/08/06/us-news/2-south-carolina-deputies-shot-in-training-exercise-after-not-testing-to-see-if-rounds-were-blanks/

In June 2022 the United States Supreme Court passed what became known as ‘the Dobbs decision'. In doing so they overturned the long standing constitutional right for women to access abortion in the US. Since then a number of states have banned abortion completely with many others having highly prohibitive rules. You'd expect the numbers of abortions to go down. They haven't. How is it possible that more people are accessing abortions in a post Dobbs society and why is it not true that states which have total bans have zero abortions per year? Presenter: Lizzy McNeill Producer: Lizzy McNeill Series Producer: Tom Colls Production Co-ordinator: Rosie Strawbridge Studio Manager: Neil Churchill Editor: Richard Vadon, Bridget Harney.

August 5, 2025- A United States Supreme Court ruling this summer may give parents more influence over their school curricula if they have religious concerns with subjects and materials. We discuss the majority opinion from the court and its implications with Daniel Morton-Bentley, counsel for the State Education Department.

Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy involving the grooming and abuse of underage girls alongside Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition for a writ of certiorari, Maxwell's legal team argues that her trial was marred by significant constitutional violations, including improper jury selection procedures, the denial of a venue change despite intense pretrial publicity, and flawed evidentiary rulings. Her attorneys assert that these alleged errors compromised her right to a fair trial, and they emphasize that the lower courts failed to correct these issues on appeal. One key argument raised is the court's refusal to grant relief after it was discovered that a juror failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell's team claims tainted the integrity of the verdict.Maxwell's legal team also argues that the Second Circuit's interpretation of federal sex trafficking laws was overly broad and threatens to criminalize conduct beyond the intended scope of the statute. The petition stresses that the Supreme Court should take up the case not only to address the errors specific to Maxwell's trial, but to clarify important legal questions that could impact future defendants nationwide. Her lawyers frame the petition as a critical moment for the high court to ensure fairness in high-profile criminal proceedings and to prevent the miscarriage of justice in cases driven by public outrage and media spectacle. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will agree to hear the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jailed child sex abuse offender Ghislaine Maxwell asks US Supreme Court to hear appeal against her conviction | Daily Mail Online

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Parental RightsPlaintiff in Mahmoud v Taylor Case on Show TodayIn 2022, a Washington, DC public school district told parents they were introducing a bundle of LGBTQIA+ affirming books to students to be more "inclusive."One of the books tasked three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker.Turns out the school district kicked a bee hive and droves of parents took advantage of a Maryland law allowing them to opt their kids out.The school district then decided to double down and take another kick at the hive by refusing parents their right to opt out. Parents sued and lower courts stood with the school district's intent to "advocate a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn't have to “make sense” and that doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn's sex anyway." and "suppress free speech and independent thinking by having teachers tell students they are “hurtful” if they question these controversial ideologies."Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court took up the case (Mahmoud v Taylor) and on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents have the right to opt their children out of the storybooks. In the Court's decision, Justice Alito writing for the majority said, “Today's decision recognizes that the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their' children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.”Jeff Roman, one of the plaintiffs in this historical parental rights legal victory, is on the show today..In a declaration, Roman noted that “We believe that much of what is taught via the pride storybooks is false religiously and scientifically. Issues of sexuality and gender identity are complex and sensitive. Our son is not old enough to be thinking about many of the issues presented in the books MCPS is requiring him to read, and would find them confusing.”I hope you can tune in.Support the show

The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.Featuring:Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of LawL. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCEric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertiesHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Top headlines for Monday, July 28, 2025In this episode, we explore recent discovery of over 13,000 unaccompanied migrant children by the Trump administration, shedding light on the complexities of immigration policy and its human impact. Next, we shift focus to a chilling case in New York, where a man used artificial intelligence to devise seven bombs intended for Manhattan, raising questions about technology's evolving role in crime. We then discuss the legal repercussions faced by Jason Yates, former CEO of My Faith Votes, who has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, highlighting issues of morality and accountability within influential circles. Lastly, we examine a pivotal petition before the United States Supreme Court that could redefine marriage equality, as justices consider overturning the landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage. 00:11 Trump admin. found over 13K unaccompanied migrant children01:13 FBI spied on priest who declined to disclose conversation: report02:18 Man built at least 7 bombs using AI: DOJ03:13 Oregon can't stop Christian mom from adopting: appeals court04:10 Jason Yates pleads guilty to child porn possession04:57 Christian school teacher arrested for relationship with student05:45 Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell decisionSubscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsTrump admin. found over 13K unaccompanied migrant children | PoliticsFBI spied on priest who declined to disclose conversation: report | PoliticsMan built at least 7 bombs using AI: DOJ | U.S.Oregon can't stop Christian mom from adopting: appeals court | U.S.Jason Yates pleads guilty to child porn possession | PoliticsChristian school teacher arrested for relationship with student | U.S.Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell decision | Politics

https://linktr.ee/anarchyamongfriendshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuynhMqXX2IAndrew's YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuYw7aFnaJBc8F6NCn-CKg/videos"InkedAnarchist15" for 15% off at https://www.thebeardstruggle.com/?rfsn=4064657.9a3f66&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=4064657.9a3f66https://www.reaperapparelco.com/?ref=52cju0Cb Or use "InkedAnarchist" at checkout and get 10% off.Dubby Energy Discount! - https://www.dubby.gg/discount/InkedAnarchist?ref=jwtimwuiJeremy at The Quartering's 'Coffee Brand Coffee': https://coffeebrandcoffee.com/?ref=eryobzq3Poppins Patches - https://www.facebook.com/poppinspatches or poppinspatches.com Anarchy Among Friends Telegram - https://t.me/AAFRTDAnarchy Among Friends Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/ValhallarchistSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0pqbeHBmWPN1sG0e6L28UvPodbean - https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/8yy6n-c5c4e/Anarchy-Among-Friends-PodcastApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anarchy-among-friends/id1459037636?ign-mpt=uo%3D4Stitcher - https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/anarchy-among-friendsGooglePodcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNGZmNzQwL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNzBreaker - https://www.breaker.audio/anarchy-among-friendsOvercast - https://overcast.fm/itunes1459037636/anarchy-among-friendsPocketCasts - https://pca.st/CDH3RadioPublic - https://radiopublic.com/anarchy-among-friends-WkzzjlBrandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio THIS PODCAST IS COVERED BY A BipCot NoGov LICENSE. USE AND RE-USE BY ANYONE EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS OR THEIR AGENTS IS OK. MORE INFO: https://bipcot.org/What does the fox say? Sweet kicks, bro -https://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/fox-shoe-theft-grand-teton?scope=anonTariffs - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/12/trump-tariffs-eu-mexicoFelony for not masking…in 2024 -https://postmillennialnews.com/oqlg19Doug Mackie -https://web.archive.org/web/20250709221013/https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/07/09/federal-appeals-court-reverses-conviction-trump-twitter-troll-douglass-mackey/Florida Man - https://nypost.com/2025/07/07/us-news/florida-man-hijacks-key-west-sightseeing-train-for-meth-fueled-joyride-on-birthday/Oregon Court Reigns In LEO Drones - https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-appeals-court-says-police-234726661.htmlAI to track… twerkers?! - https://www.cleveland19.com/2025/07/11/richmond-heights-police-use-facial-recognition-identify-women-twerking-cop-car/$130k to destroy $800k of food - https://reason.com/2025/07/16/the-trump-administration-is-spending-130000-to-burn-800000-worth-of-food-meant-for-hungry-children/1 Day Punishment? -https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/news-wrap-doj-says-officer-convicted-of-killing-breonna-taylor-should-get-1-day-sentenceWisconsin - https://www.wkow.com/community/wisconsin-s-new-vape-law-could-put-local-shops-out-of-business/article_e8dc9a47-5623-4e22-b22c-c71a641bcdb3.htmlIn-N-Out leaves Cali -https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/billionaire-in-n-out-heiress-lynsi-snyder-family-leaving-california-tennesseeRight To Farm -https://www.agweb.com/news/business/right-farm-fight-erupts-after-family-ordered-tear-down-greenhouseChuck E Cheese arrested - https://www.tmz.com/2025/07/24/chuck-e-cheese-mascot-arrested-florida$20/hr consequences -https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/07/22/report-californias-20-fast-food-minimum-wage-led-to-18000-fewer-jobs/Treasury - https://nypost.com/2025/07/25/business/venmo-paypal-users-can-help-us-government-pay-down-36-7t-debt/

Jon Whitehead, attorney and former board member of the ERLC, joins the show to talk about the significance and implications for pastors of the Trump administration's recent changes to the tax code.   Jonathan Whitehead represents churches, denominations, colleges, and religious organizations on matters of corporate governance and compliance. He played a leading role in landmark Missouri cases on the relationship between denominational groups and their related entities. He has authored numerous amicus briefs and been co-counsel on cases before the United States Supreme Court. In 2018, he was named an "Influential Appellate Advocate" by Missouri's Lawyers Weekly. He is a graduate of Southwest Baptist University (2001) and Harvard Law School (2004). He is also a Blackstone Fellow (2002).   Learn more about Jonathan Whitehead's work: https://x.com/jrwhitehead https://www.whiteheadlawllc.com/ https://americanreformer.org/author/jonathan-whitehead/   ––––––   Follow American Reformer across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://www.twitter.com/amreformer Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmericanReformer/ YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@AmericanReformer Rumble – https://rumble.com/user/AmReformer Website – https://americanreformer.org/   Promote a vigorous Christian approach to the cultural challenges of our day, by donating to The American Reformer: https://americanreformer.org/donate/   Follow Us on Twitter: Josh Abbotoy – https://twitter.com/Byzness Timon Cline – https://twitter.com/tlloydcline   The American Reformer Podcast is  hosted by Josh Abbotoy and Timon Cline, recorded remotely in the United States, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to our Podcast, "The American Reformer" Get our RSS Feed – https://americanreformerpodcast.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-american-reformer-podcast/id1677193347 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/1V2dH5vhfogPIv0X8ux9Gm?si=a19db9dc271c4ce5

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

In this episode, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Jan Crawford of CBS News, and Fred Smith Jr. of Stanford Law School join to explore polarization on the Court and the role of the media and the political branches in shaping public perceptions. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025) Jess Bravin and Mariah Timms, “Supreme Court Limits Rulings Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship,” The Wall Street Journal (June 27, 2025)  Jan Crawford, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for the Control of the United States Supreme Court (2007)  Fred O. Smith, Jr. and Peter O'Neill, “The Forgotten Face of ‘Our Federalism,'” The Yale Law Journal (forthcoming, 2026) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

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

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

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

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

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

On a special cross-over episode, Dina Doll of Unprecedented on the Legal AF Youtube channel focused on the United States Supreme Court joins Michael Popok on the Legal AF podcast, to take on: the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision against Transgender Americans; the Supreme Court's future involvement in Trump's attack on States Rights; Senior Status Federal Judges taking on Trump and holding his feet to the fire; the top remaining Supreme Court decisions yet to "drop" but we expect in the next 2 weeks, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. QUALIA: Head to https://qualialife.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 15% off your purchase! DELETE ME: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://deleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. UPLIFT: Elevate your workspace and energize your year with Uplift Desk. Go to https://upliftdesk.com/legalaf for a special offer exclusive to our audience. MOINK: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get FREE WINGS for LIFE! Check Out The Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com/ Subscribe to the NEW Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

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