Podcasts about us supreme court

This Day in Legal History: The Nuremberg VerdictsOn October 1, 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its sentences on the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany. Of the 22 defendants, 19 were convicted and three were acquitted. Twelve were sentenced to death, three to life imprisonment, and four to prison terms of 10 to 20 years. Hermann Göring killed himself the night before his scheduled execution. Martin Bormann, tried in absentia, was never found to face his sentence. The other death sentences were carried out on October 16.The legal achievement of Nuremberg was the decision to hold a trial at all. The Allies could have simply executed the Nazi leadership; some officials argued for exactly that. Instead, at the urging of figures like U.S. Justice Robert Jackson, who left the Supreme Court to serve as chief prosecutor, they built a court, allowed defense counsel, admitted evidence, and let the outcome turn on proof. The acquittals mattered as much as the convictions: they showed the tribunal was deciding cases, not ratifying a foregone conclusion. Nuremberg also established principles that still anchor international law, most importantly that “following orders” is not a defense to crimes against humanity, and that individuals, not just states, can be held criminally responsible for aggression and atrocities.The significance of October 1, 1946 is the idea in today's opening quote, from Jackson's opening statement: that even when dealing with the worst crimes imaginable, the state submits to legal process rather than acting on raw power. That idea, that the government must work through courts and procedure, especially when it is detaining, removing, or putting people to death, runs through every story we cover today.The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the administration can detain millions of immigrants for the entire length of their deportation proceedings without a bond hearing. In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance saying that immigrants who entered the country illegally are subject to mandatory detention with no bond hearing while their cases proceed, a process that can take months or years. The legal fight is about which section of the immigration statute applies. The law has one provision that requires detention for “applicants for admission,” historically understood to mean people arriving at the border. A separate provision governs people already living in the country and generally lets them ask an immigration judge for release on bond. The administration's new position is that anyone who entered without inspection remains an “applicant for admission” no matter how long they've lived here, which would move them into the mandatory-detention category. The case the Court took involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who authorities say entered illegally two decades ago and applied for asylum in 2016. The Second Circuit ruled against the government. And according to the reporting, appeals judges in nine of the eleven federal circuits to consider the question have concluded that detention without a bond hearing violates federal law. That makes the administration's position an outlier among the lower courts, which is part of why the Supreme Court stepped in. The stakes are very large. A bond hearing doesn't guarantee release; it just means a judge decides whether a person is a flight risk or a danger. If the Court sides with the administration, millions of long-term residents could be held without that individualized review for the length of their cases. The Court will hear it in the term that opens Monday.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Trump's immigration detention policy | Reuters · Yahoo News · National Immigration ForumThe U.S. Court of International Trade heard arguments in a challenge to the President's “forced labor” tariffs, and opponents say the case is a test of whether he can rebuild the tariff power the Supreme Court took away in February. Imposed in late July, the tariffs range from 10% to 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners, including the European Union and China, and they cover more than 99% of goods imported into the United States. The stated justification is that those countries have failed to stop imports made with forced labor. Four small businesses and 25 Democratic-led states sued, and their three cases were consolidated before a three-judge panel with appointees of Presidents Trump, Obama, and Biden. Their argument is that the trade statute the administration relied on requires country-specific findings of unfair trade practices, reached through a real investigation. In their telling, “forced labor” is a pretext: a label stretched over nearly all imports from 60 countries to recreate the broad, global tariff authority the Supreme Court rejected when it struck down the emergency-powers tariffs. The legal question is how closely courts will examine the factual basis for a statutory trade remedy. If the statute requires findings and the findings are thin or generic, the tariffs are vulnerable. If the court defers to the executive's judgment on trade practices, they likely survive. The panel isn't expected to rule from the bench. This connects directly to my column from last week on building an unwinding mechanism into tariffs from the start. If these tariffs fall too, importers will be back in the refund line, and consumers who paid higher prices will again have no clear way to get that money back.US trade court to weigh challenge to Trump's forced labor tariffs | Reuters · CNBC · Foreign PolicyAnd finally, a story that took a turn no one expected. Tennessee tried to execute Christa Pike on Wednesday night, and the execution failed. Pike was the only woman on Tennessee's death row, convicted of the 1995 torture and murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, a fellow student at a Knoxville Job Corps program. Pike was 18 at the time of the crime. The legal path to Wednesday night was itself dramatic. On Wednesday morning, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit granted a short stay to consider her claim that evidence of severe childhood sexual abuse was never adequately considered at sentencing. Tennessee went to the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay Wednesday evening, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. Officials then administered two doses of the lethal drug, but Pike's heart was still beating, and she was taken to a hospital. Governor Bill Lee has ordered a comprehensive third-party review and said the remaining execution scheduled for this year will not go forward. Now the legal questions are unusual and difficult. The closest Supreme Court precedent is from 1947, Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, when the state's electric chair failed to kill Willie Francis and the Court held, 5 to 4, that Louisiana could try again without violating the Eighth Amendment. Modern lethal-injection cases like Baze v. Rees and Bucklew v. Precythe focus on whether a method creates a substantial risk of severe pain, but they don't squarely address what happens after an execution has actually been attempted and failed. Pike's lawyers will almost certainly argue that a second attempt would be cruel and unusual. There are also the issues that were already in the case: her age at the time of the crime, just past the line the Supreme Court drew in Roper v. Simmons barring execution for crimes committed under 18, and the abuse evidence the Sixth Circuit wanted time to examine. Whatever one's view of the death penalty, a failed execution is exactly the kind of event the Eighth Amendment was written to make courts confront, and this case will now test what the Constitution requires when the state's ultimate punishment doesn't work.Tennessee due to execute woman for first time in two centuries | Reuters · NPR · CBS News 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

Christa Pike, who has spent more than three decades on death row in Tennessee, survived two doses of what was supposed to be a lethal injection and was taken to hospital.A court-ordered pause was lifted by the US Supreme Court before the attempt, and the state's governor has halted executions for the rest of the year and ordered a review.So how can an attempted execution go so wrong?Be aware that this story includes disturbing details of a crime and how the death penalty is administered.

On this episode, we have a special guest from the AFJ Justice team. We are joined by our colleague Morgan Flitt an Alliance for Justice Senior Dorot Fellow. With Morgan we will be covering the upcoming cases that will be heard by the US Supreme Court this session. Many of these cases – affect everyday people and the issues they care about,  climate change, gun rights, voting, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. Then we will talk about how nonprofits can get involved with supreme court advocacy, nominees, and more while staying nonpartisan and being mindful of lobbying limits. Attorneys for this Episode Brittany Leonard Susan Finkle Sourlis Morgan Flitt   Intro to Justice Program: Brittany ·      Our justice team works on both federal and state judicial appointments and elections and runs numerous invaluable resources including our judicial vacancy tracker and helps keep us and the public informed about nominees. This includes the decisions they make after they've been confirmed, and how cases in federal courts – especially the supreme court – are impacting our civil rights and democracy.   ·      Today, we are thrilled to be joined on the pod by our friend and colleague Morgan Flitt. Morgan is a fellow attorney who serves as the Senior Dorot Fellow on the Federal Courts team. ·      Today we want to talk about the upcoming cases in this supreme court term, what we should be keeping an eye on, the potential impacts for our c3 partners, and what nonprofits can do during this term and future terms to advocate.   Cases to watch out for this term (4 across 4 differenttt critical issue areas) ·      Climate Change o      Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170) §     Issue: Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether this court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case §     Brief context: The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor, arguing that they should share in the costs of mitigating climate change because they knowingly contributed to causing it through producing, marketing, and selling fossil fuels while misrepresenting its dangers. The companies argued federal law preempted these claims, but the lower court agreed with the Board and the City of Boulder. §     Consequences: If the Supreme Court sides with Big Oil and Gas Companies, giving them blanket federal immunity from state tort law, this could potentially wipe out the dozens of climate deception cases that states and localities have filed around the country. §     Argument: Oct 5, 2026   ·      Voting and democracy o      Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017) §     Issue: (1) Whether the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibits Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form; and (2) whether the NVRA prohibits Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens. §     Brief context: In 2022, Arizona passed two additional hurdles to voting. First, they required new voter registrants to provide a physical "documentary proof of citizenship." Secondly, Arizona enabled county recorders to conduct citizenship audits of voter registration rolls against both state and federal databases. Mi Familia Vota and others filed suit against the Republican National Committee (RNC) to block these state laws from going into effect. The Ninth Circuit sided with Mi Familia Vota. §     Consequences: Siding with the RNC to greenlight these additional hurdles would render another blow to voting access and our democracy. Such demands would screen out lower income voters, people who have changed their names, naturalized citizens, and anyone who doesn't happen to have easy ways to obtain a passport or their birth certificate. It would also open the door for other states to impose similar inequitable requirements. §     Argument: December 8, 2026   ·      LGBTQ+ Rights o      International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (No. 25-840) §     Issue: Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decisionmaking role as to "gender transitions" of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them. §     Brief context: Washington took "modest steps to address the crisis of transgender youth homelessness" by updating its laws to allow minors in shelters to access "health care — including gender-affirming care — without contacting their parents." Staff must still make good faith efforts to notify the minor's parents and are only allowed to withhold information if sharing it would cause harm to the minor. In response, the International Partners for Ethical Care and a group of parents challenged these laws, claiming they chill speech and "deliberately displace their decision-making role." The Ninth Circuit court of appeals dismissed their case for lack of legal standing. §     Consequences: The issue of legal standing is often political, and if the Court grants these parents standing, it could open the door for special interest groups to manufacture so-called grievances to bring challenges to school curricula, library books, vaccination policies, and confidential reproductive care. ·      It would also advance yet another challenge to the medical necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender people while protecting the abuse of anti-LGBTQ+ parental rejection. §     Argument: December 7, 2026   ·      Gun Safety o      Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238), consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566) §     Issue: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. §     Brief context: When Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya were barred from owning AR-15 style weapons after they were banned in Cook County, Illinois, they joined two gun-rights organizations and filed a suit arguing that the law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic rifles violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Both an Illinois district court and the Seventh Circuit sided with Cook County and upheld the assault weapons ban. What will happen if the ban is overturned? §     Consequences: A decision overturning this ban could void other assault weapons bans in Connecticut, California, New York, and a dozen other states — bans that have drastically reduced mass shootings, including school shootings, compared to states without such bans. §     Argument: December 2, 2026   What c3s can do: ·      Supreme court advocacy is nonpartisan—you are free to stand for or against cases before any court or get involved in the cases. o      Litigation at the supreme court o      Amicus briefs o      Educating the public about cases and impacts of opinions Advocacy and lobbying work about the courts: ·      Nominee advocacy—Advocate for or against nominees to supreme court (lobbying) o      Remember the lower district courts and circuit courts as well o      Remember the lobbying rules if you are a c3: must track and report your lobbying the IRS and stay within your lobbying limits. Great place for c4s to get involved because they can lobbying in an unlimited amount. ·      Ethics advocacy—ask congress for more oversight or ethics rules (Lobbying if it will require a legislative vote). ·      Supreme court reform: increasing the size of the bench, retirement requirements, and more   Resources ·      Alliance for Justice, Being a Player ·      Alliance for Justice, Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices ·      Alliance for Justice, Judicial Nominee Tracker ·      Alliance for Justice, Supreme Court Reform ·      See more of our coverage of critical Supreme Court cases this term here.

It's Tuesday, September 29th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson and Timothy Reed Chinese communists shut down churches while Jin ping in America While Chinese President Xi Jinping was visiting the United States, Communist police were still arresting pastors and shutting down churches in China. Pastors and church workers from Jiaquan Church in Beijing have been arrested in raids occurring over the last week.  This follows another mass arrest of more members of the Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu in southwestern China. Send a polite, 4-sentence letter to the Chinese Ambassador to America, Xie Feng, urging him to tell the Communist party officials to stop arresting pastors and shutting down churches. Send it to the Chinese Embassy, 3505 International Place NW, Washington, DC 20008. Supreme Court continues to affirm parental rights Over the past year, parental rights advocates are winning cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. By law, the state of California was requiring school officials to conceal information concerning children's gender transitioning behavior from their parents.  Thankfully, the high court struct down the law earlier in the year.  In a separate ruling last June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down another Maryland law that prohibited parents from opting their kids out of homosexual/transgender indoctrination classes, reported CBS News. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito argued on the basis of religious rights. He wrote, “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.” Ebola virus killed 4,000 people in Congo The World Health Organization reports 8,000 cases of Ebola in the latest outbreak in Congo, Africa — and now, almost 4,000 deaths. This is the worst outbreak of this deadly disease since 2013.  Mortgage rates at 7.5% The U.S. 30-year mortgage rate hit 7.5% yesterday, reports Mortgage News Daily.  That's the highest rate since December 2000.  Trump criticized United Nations President Donald Trump took to the stage at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last week, heavily criticizing the organization, but also praising it in some aspects as well. Trump stated, “There is no human right to illegal immigration, but there is a right to remain a sovereign nation.” He added that the United States “totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control artificial intelligence.”  The president also said, “The United Nations has great, great potential” and he encouraged the U.S. Ambassador to the UN “to implement the most sweeping UN reforms in history.” Canadian doctors kill more people than American murderers do Canada now kills more people by "assisted suicide" than the United States does by homicide. United States Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah detailed this fact in a now viral post on X, stating, “State-administered death is now more common in Canada than gun homicide is in the U.S.  That didn't happen by accident.” He also said, “The intersection of assisted suicide and socialized medicine results in state-led horrors, treating the young, old, infirm, and distressed as disposable people. We must never allow this barbarity to spread in America.” Jeremiah 8:3 gives a stark warning. The Lord of hosts said, “Then death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of those who remain of this evil family, who remain in all the places where I have driven them.” Gen Z more religious than older generations A new update from the Harris Report revealed that Gen Z is more religious than older generations. Per the report, “Gen Z is not abandoning faith, they are the generation most likely to identify as religious. Gen Z is not just identifying with faith, they are actively practicing it. For Gen Z, spirituality is one way to build agency in an uncertain future.” However, many in Gen Z continue to observe harmful religious practices, and dabble with the occult and manifestations.  Ephesians 6:12 says, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Planned Parenthood gave Joe Biden their baby killing award And finally, abortion giant Planned Parenthood handed out its 2026 Sonia Schorr Sloan Service Award to former President Joe Biden, one of the biggest supporters of abortion in United States history, reported LifeNews. Biden recalled his historic murderous work. Referring to Sonny Sloan, the late president of Delaware's Planned Parenthood, Biden said this. BIDEN: “In the wake of the Dobbs decision, as president, I tried to do what I knew Sonny would have been on the phone telling me to do. We took action. We signed executive orders to protect access to reproductive health care, including emergency medical care.”  Since former President Biden is quite difficult to understand, this is what he said. “In the wake of the Dobbs decision, as president, I tried to do what I knew Sonny would have been on the phone telling me to do. We took action. We signed executive orders to protect access to reproductive health care, including emergency medical care.”  (Watch the soundbite at the 17:07-mark in this video of Biden's speech) Steven Ertelt of LifeNews explained, “The abortion business killed a record number of babies in abortions last year thanks to Biden's help with tax funding and pro-abortion executive orders.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, September 29th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

This Day in Legal History: Congress Creates the U.S. ArmyOn September 29, 1789—the very last day of the First Congress's inaugural session—the House and Senate passed the act that formally established the United States Army under the new Constitution. President Washington had pressed hard for it, reminding Congress that the militia provisions inherited from the Articles of Confederation were inadequate and that the nation needed a standing military establishment placed on a proper constitutional footing.The legal significance lies less in the creation of a fighting force than in how that force was subordinated. The Constitution had already divided military power deliberately: Congress alone can raise and fund armies and declare war, while the President serves as Commander-in-Chief. The 1789 Act operationalized that division, embedding the bedrock American principle of civilian control of the military—that the armed forces answer to elected civilian authority and operate within, not above, the rule of law. The Framers were deeply wary of standing armies and concentrated power; their answer was not to forbid a military, but to fracture control over it between the branches so no single actor could wield it unchecked.The significance of September 29, 1789 is that principle—power channeled through congressional authorization and constitutional limits rather than executive will alone. And that is precisely the thread running through our lead story today: a dispute over whether the executive branch can wield federal money as a lever to force its policy preferences on the states, or whether it may only do what Congress has actually authorized. The names change over 237 years; the fundamental question—who gets to exercise power, and with whose permission—does not.A federal judge has blocked the administration from tying federal counterterrorism grants to whether states adopt its preferred election-administration changes—the latest in a long string of election-related defeats we've tracked this month. Here's what the administration did: the Department of Homeland Security announced it would withhold 20% of funding under grant programs meant to help state and local governments prepare for terrorist attacks and other threats, unless those governments adopted election measures the administration favored. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, in a 24-page opinion, sided with counties and cities in Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee that sued, holding that federal agencies simply lacked authority from Congress to attach those conditions to the grants. Let me put this in its constitutional frame, because it's a classic. The federal government routinely attaches strings to the money it gives states—that's the spending power, and it's legitimate within limits. But the Supreme Court set boundaries in cases like South Dakota v. Dole and, more forcefully, in the NFIB v. Sebelius healthcare decision: conditions must be clearly stated, must relate to the purpose of the funding, and can't be so coercive that they amount to a “gun to the head.” Conditioning anti-terrorism preparedness money on unrelated election changes runs into two of those problems at once—the germaneness requirement, since election administration has nothing to do with counterterrorism, and the basic separation-of-powers point that an agency can't invent conditions Congress never authorized. That last point is what Judge Ali hung his ruling on, and it's the same principle that decided the homelessness and mail-ballot cases: agencies have only the power Congress gives them. The significance is that this is now a consistent, rulings-deep pattern—court after court telling the executive it cannot use funding leverage, or agency fiat, to seize control over how states run their elections. On the anniversary of a law about channeling power through congressional authorization, it's a fitting rebuke.Judge blocks Trump from tying anti-terrorism grants to election changes | Reuters · PBS News · US NewsIn a notable reversal, Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a major climate-change case the Supreme Court is set to hear next week—and the move opens up real questions about both judicial ethics and the case's outcome. The case involves Boulder, Colorado, and its county, which sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy seeking damages for the local harms of climate change; it's set for argument October 5. Environmental groups had pushed for Alito to step aside because he owns stock in oil-and-gas companies—ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, among others—that, while not parties to this particular suit, plainly have interests riding on how the Court treats climate liability. Here's why the reversal is striking. Back in May, a Court spokeswoman said Alito would not recuse, on the theory that he had no financial interest in any actual party to the case. Now he's stepping aside anyway. This goes to the heart of the judicial-ethics debate that has dogged the Court: federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 455, requires a judge to disqualify when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when they have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy—and Supreme Court justices, unlike lower-court judges, have historically decided their own recusal questions with no review and little explanation. Alito's flip suggests the pressure and scrutiny over the Court's ethics, which produced its first-ever formal code of conduct in 2023, is having an effect. And there's a concrete consequence: with only eight justices participating, the case could end in a 4-4 tie—which would leave the lower-court ruling in place without setting any national precedent. The significance is that it's a small but real sign of the Court responding to ethics scrutiny, and a reminder that in the climate-liability wars, procedural moves like a single recusal can matter as much as the merits.US Supreme Court's Alito won't participate in climate case involving oil companies | Reuters · CNBC · NBC NewsAnd finally, Florida has asked a court to bar OpenAI from developing new AI models without outside oversight—an extraordinary requested remedy that, if granted, would be one of the most aggressive judicial interventions into AI development we've seen. This is part of a lawsuit Florida's attorney general, James Uthmeier, filed in June, accusing OpenAI of misrepresenting ChatGPT's safety and of harming children—the complaint alleges the platform provided information to school shooters, offered guidance on self-harm, and was designed to addict young users. In Monday's filing, Florida escalated the requested relief dramatically: it asked the court to prohibit OpenAI from developing new models without external oversight, to order the company to keep minors off ChatGPT entirely, and to bar it from giving the chatbot “human attributes.” Let me unpack why that's such a big ask. Courts issue injunctions all the time, but a prohibitory injunction against building new products—essentially putting a court-supervised brake on a technology company's core R&D—is a remarkable expansion of the injunctive remedies we've discussed in the teen-harms cases. It raises hard questions about how far a court's equitable power can reach into ongoing innovation, and whether such sweeping prior restraint on development is even administrable. Notably, OpenAI says it has already paused training its most capable models and won't resume until additional safeguards are in place—which both undercuts the urgency Florida claims and signals the company sees the writing on the wall. Florida is the first state AG to sue OpenAI over harms to young users, though the company faces individual and family suits too, including ones tied to self-harm. And this connects to a huge thread we've followed all month—the Harvey guardrails acquisition, the ChatGPT-fabricated testimony, California's Adam's Law. The significance is that the legal system is now being asked not just to punish AI harms after the fact, but to preemptively supervise how these models get built—a genuine frontier for the law, and one courts will approach with real caution.Florida asks court to bar OpenAI from developing new models as part of child harm lawsuit | Reuters · US News · Lawyer Monthly 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

Monday, September 28, 2026Today, The US Supreme Court once again blocks Missouri Republicans from using their gerrymandered 2025 Congressional map; a Trump-appointed federal judge held the administration in contempt for twice deporting an asylum seeker; the White House is again blocking networks from certain press coverage; Kash Patel demoted two FBI agents for failure to investigate alleged threats against Steven and Katie Miller; a former Cornell student is suing the school and 7 of its students over rape allegations; Governor Mikie Sherrill is calling for the resignation of the Lieutenant Governor over sexual misconduct; the Supreme Court revived DHS' flawed immigration database for voter purges; an error led to a backlog of tens of thousands of voter registration applications in Texas; AI systems went rogue again and meddled with federal government websites; Trump is using public money to run ads about how great he is; the UK arrested five people near a US base for a suspected terror plot; Trump has rejected a peace deal from Iran; the Pentagon quietly increased the number of injured troops; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, DeleteMe | Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout. Blue Wave Nation | https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mswbluewave The Trump Epstein Memorial BookmobileThe Daily Beans is proud to partner with Miles Taylor and our friends at DEFIANCE.org For a limited time, members of the Daily Beans community can receive a FREE 3-month full membership to DEFIANCE.org and gain access to one of the fastest-growing pro-democracy movements in America. Join here: https://www.defiance.org/beansGuest: Mark Hamill@markhamill - Instagram@markhamillofficial.bsky.social - BlueskyThe Latest Breakdown →What Do Mark Hamill, Kathy Griffin, Glenn Kirschner, Rep Gloria Johnson, and Brian Karem Have in Common?New Unjustified →Volume II Catch-22Diamond Dames → Diamond Dames - YouTube Diamond Dames - A Ted Lasso PodcastPatreon → The Daily Beans | PatreonStoriesJudge finds Trump administration in contempt for twice deporting asylum-seeker | ABC News‘Love Me' Ad Promotes Trump With Public Money Ahead of the Midterms | The New York TimesFBI Ousts Officials Probing Threats to Stephen Miller's Wife (2) | BloombergIran War Updates: Trump expects talks with Iran to resume this week after rejecting proposal | CBS News5 men arrested near UK air base used by U.S. in Iran war on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act | PBS NewsWhite House blocks CNN from trip on Air Force One | The Washington PostFormer Cornell University student sues school, 7 fraternity members over rape allegations | CBS New YorkMikie Sherrill demands NJ lieutenant governor resign after report found improper behavior with women | POLITICOSupreme Court revives DHS use of flawed immigration database for voter purges | Democracy DocketOpenAI's A.I. Went Rogue and Meddled With U.S. Government Websites | The New York TimesGood Troublehttps://mobilize.us→Battleground Support Hub - Democrats.org →Get Out The Vote: Volunteer Info Session→Voter Registration Deadlines - Vote.org→Hands Off Our Vote! 2026 Toolkit | Indivisible→Help staff your local polling place - Power The Polls→Voter Registration Volunteer Opportunities · Mobilize→Helpline Orientation- Spanish Speakers Needed! - VoteRiders→Help save Texas from Ken Paxton! →NO HATE in WA State→Stand With Minnesota →iceout.org Good NewsColumbia City GalleryDana Goldberg's Southwest FunnyFest Oct 9 - City of Albuquerque→Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans→Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.comSubscribe to the MSW on YouTube - MSW Media - YouTubeOur Donation LinksThe Trevor Project - trevorproject.org/beansBlue Wave California - ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwcDonate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/National Security Counselors - Donate, WhistleblowerAid.org/beansDonate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans FundraiserPathways to Citizenship - boomerang - pathways Dana and The Daily Beans support of Human Rights Campaign ONE CAUSE HRCThe Daily Beans supports It Gets BetterDr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers email AG - fedoath@pm.meDana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook, DanaGoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Sept. 29, 2026The U.S. Supreme Court Again Blocks Third Attempt to Restore Missouri's Gerrymandered 2025 Map for the Midterm.  Now It's Up to the Voters.For the third time, the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked a gerrymandered Missouri congressional map from being used in the 2026 general election.  The September 25th decision ends, at least until after the midterms, state-sponsored GOP efforts to eliminate a long-held Democratic seat in Kansas City.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & ResourcesU.S. Supreme Court -  PEOPLE NOT POLITICIANS, ET AL. v. ROBERT ONDER, ET AL.  SCOTUSblog - For the third time, Supreme Court declines to allow Missouri to use congressional map expected to aid RepublicansMissouri Independent - US Supreme Court again blocks Missouri's gerrymandered congressional mapBallotPedia - Missouri Proposition A, Congressional Map Referendum (2026)People Not Politicians MO - FAQs on Proposition ARelated ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - Missouri Supreme Court Rules Pro-Voter Redistricting Ballot Measure Must Be Added to the Ballot;  Secretary of State Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court American Democracy Minute - Missouri SOS Still Apparently Scheming to Derail November Ballot Initiative to Overturn New Gerrymandered Congressional Map Splitting Kansas CityGroups Taking Action:People Not Politicians MORegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your State Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgSubscribe for FREE at Apple Podcasts, Spotify and most podcasting platforms.#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #PeopleNotPoliticiansMO #USSupremeCourt #Missouri #CongressionalMap #RacialGerrymandering #KansasCity

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Sept. 28, 2026U.S. Supreme Court's Majority Allows Use of Social Security Data for SAVE Database, But Limits Through the Election; Case Sent Back to DC CircuitThere's been a decision in a U.S. Supreme Court voting rights & data privacy case we've been following.  Sept. 25th, the high court's majority allowed Social Security data to be used in the Trump administration's SAVE database, over the strenuous objection of pro-voter and civil rights groups and several states.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & ResourcesU.S. Supreme Court - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL.ON APPLICATION FOR STAY  SCOTUSBlog - Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to use modified voter verification databaseNevada Indpendent - 185 noncitizen voters flagged by Trump admin in Nevada are likely citizens, state saysThe statement from election officials comes after the Trump administration first claimed up to 16,000 noncitizens could be registered to vote in Nevada. Legal Defense Fund - LDF Strongly Condemns the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision to Restore Trump Administration's SAVE Databasehttps://www.naacpldf.org/news/ldf-strongly-condemns-the-u-s-supreme-courts-decision-to-restore-trump-administrations-save-database/Related ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - Federal District Court Rules Use of Social Security and Other Federal Data for SAVE Database Violates Multiple Federal Privacy StatutesAmerican Democracy Minute - Class Action Suit by Voters Claims Personal Data Shared to the Trump Administration's SAVE Database Violates the Privacy Act of 1974Groups Taking Action:League of Women Voters US, Electronic Privacy Information CenterFind all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgSubscribe for FREE at Apple Podcasts, Spotify and most podcasting platforms.#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #LWV #SAVEDatabase #USSupremeCourt #TrumpExecutiveOrder #NoncitizenVoting #FreedomtoVote

A weekend of wild weather as a couple of power storms are set to hit Hawaii and the Northeastern United States. The Supreme Court rejects the new congressional maps in Missouri that favored republicans. Mortgage rates and bond yields continue to rise, raising borrowing costs for both consumers and the government.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show's perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

The US Supreme Court allows DHS to continue to verify voter idenifications in a major win for the Trump administration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

National pancake day. Entertainment from 1969. 1st televised presidential debate, 1st Chief Justice to the US Supreme Court, NC-17 created. Todays birthdays - Johnny Appleseed, Edmond Guinn, Pope Paul VI, Jack LaLanne, Marty Robbins, Donna Douglas, Lynn Anderson, Olivia Newton-John, Linda Hamilton, Jim Caviezel, Zoe Perry. Paul Newman died.Intro - God did good - Dianna Corcoran https://www.diannacorcoran.com/Pancake song - Singalong kids songsSugar Sugar - The ArchiesTall Dark Stranger - Buck OwensBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent http://50cent.com/El Paso - Marty RobbinsBeverly Hillbillies TV theme(I never promised you a) Rose garden - Lynn AndersonIf not for you - Olivia Newton-JohnYoung Sheldon TV themeExit - Pink Whitney - Payton Howie https://paytonhowie.com/History & Factoids about today Playlist on SpotifyHistory & Factoids about today webpagecooolmedia.comcountryundergroundradio.comNational Days Puzzles - JulyGrace & Grit Christian Country Radio

The US Supreme Court will allow an expanded immigration database to be used to check voter eligibility before the November midterm elections. Chinese President Xi Jinping's US visit comes to an end. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defends Israel at the UN as delegates walk out. The Pope travels to France. And in a New Zealand town, trees planted for carbon credits are replacing farms and threatening livelihoods. Podcasts, breaking news, and video analysis from the source. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Download the Reuters app now.⁠⁠⁠⁠ Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt out of targeted advertising. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In March 2025, Apple chartered cargo flights to deliver 600 tonnes of iPhones from India to the United States. A year earlier, four in five smartphones that imported to the US came from China. One of the aims of US trade policy has been to decouple the US economy from China. So is the strategy working? Chad Bown (PIIE, CEPR) tells Tim Phillips how he examined the US import data product by product to see how American importers coped with Trump's second trade war. In consumer electronics, many firms quietly built a second supply chain in tariff-exempt countries before 2025, and switched sourcing away from China almost overnight in 2025. But clothing and footwear did not switch, because alternative source countries like Vietnam faced tariffs almost as high. When the US taxes imports from every country, the decoupling strategy gets lost.The research behind this episode:Bown, Chad P. 2026. "How Did Trump's 2025 Trade War Affect the Decoupling of US-China Supply Chains?" CEPR Discussion Paper DP21801 (gated). Forthcoming in Asian Economic Policy Review. To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Chad P. Bown. 2026. "Decoupling from China after Trump's Trade Wars." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).About the guestChad P. Bown is the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a Fellow in the International Trade and Regional Economics programme of the Centre for Economic Policy Research. He was chief economist at the US Department of State from January 2024 to January 2025, and senior economist for international trade and investment on President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. His research spans trade policy, industrial policy, economic security and supply chains. He co-created the Trade Talks podcast with Soumaya Keynes in 2017, and with Keynes he is co-author of How to Win a Trade War (Simon & Schuster, 2026).Research cited in this episodeThe 2018-19 Section 301 tariffs. In Trump's first term the US imposed tariffs on imports from China in stages, on product lists set under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Lists 1, 2 and 3, mostly intermediate inputs such as auto parts, ended at 25%. List 4A began at 15% and was cut to 7.5% in February 2020 under the Phase One agreement. List 4B, mostly consumer goods such as smartphones, laptops and toys, was delayed "for Christmas season" and never imposed. By the end of the first trade war, roughly two thirds of US imports from China faced new tariffs. Bown's point is that the goods spared in 2018-19 were the ones hit hardest in 2025.The 2025 IEEPA tariffs on China. In February and March 2025, before Liberation Day, the US imposed two rounds of 10% tariffs on all imports from China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, justified by concerns over fentanyl. For the first time this covered smartphones and other List 4B goods. One of the two was removed in November 2025 after Presidents Trump and Xi met in South Korea.Liberation Day. On 2 April 2025 the US announced tariffs on most of its trading partners, at rates that varied by country. A long list of products, including smartphones, was exempt under Annex II. On 9 April the country rates were paused and a 10% baseline applied while countries negotiated. China's rates escalated after retaliation on both sides; the Liberation Day actions on China alone reached 125% before a truce in Geneva in May. The exemptions matter to the episode. A tariff on China changes sourcing only if the alternatives face a lower one.The August 2025 tariffs on India. The US raised tariffs on India by a further 25 percentage points in August 2025, citing India's purchases of Russian oil. Smartphones were again exempt, so Apple's Indian supply chain stayed tariff free. For some clothing, India ended up facing a larger tariff increase than China.The Supreme Court ruling on IEEPA tariffs. On 20 February 2026 the US Supreme Court ruled that the country-level tariffs imposed under IEEPA were illegal. The Section 232 sectoral tariffs and the Section 301 tariffs on China were not part of the case. The administration removed the IEEPA tariffs and began imposing new ones under other legal authorities, which is why Bown warns that some of the 2025 effects may yet reverse.Apple's alternative supply chain in India. Apple and its contract manufacturers, including Foxconn and Tata Electronics, spent several years building iPhone assembly in India. Patrick McGee tells the story in Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company (Simon & Schuster, 2026). Over the last nine months of 2025, 40% of US smartphone imports came from China and 46% from India. Laptops, monitors and video game consoles moved in a similar way, mostly to Vietnam.Inputs for AI. The paper defines AI inputs using the product codes that Nvidia publishes for export control compliance: certain semiconductors, printed circuit boards, servers and other data centre hardware. These made up about 14% of US imports in 2025. They grew by $183 billion that year, more than the $144 billion rise in total US goods imports. A separate classification by Michael Waugh (2026) finds a larger share, at 23%.US tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. In 2024 the Biden administration raised US tariffs on electric vehicles from China to 100%, using the authority of the 2018 Section 301 action. China exported 40% of the world's electric vehicles in 2024, according to the International Energy Agency, but almost none to the United States.China's export restrictions on rare earths. In April 2025 China restricted exports of rare earths and permanent magnets, of which it produces about 90% of world supply. Bown did not include these products in the paper, but they are the reverse of the decoupling story. They are goods for which the US found no alternative supplier.Tariff pass-through to consumer prices. Bown suggests that firms with an alternative supplier may explain why some prices, such as the iPhone's, did not rise. He points to work by Alberto Cavallo, Paola Llamas and Franco Vazquez (2025), "Tracking the Short-Run Price Impact of U.S. Tariffs," NBER Working Paper 34496, which tracks how the 2025 tariffs reached retail prices.How to Win a Trade War. Soumaya Keynes and Chad P. Bown. 2026. How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy. New York: Simon & Schuster. The authors argue that the conflict with China will not reverse, and that other economies are now dealing with China-related shocks of their own.More VoxTalks Economics episodesMaking sense of the US-China trade war, in which Bown explained the first trade war in 2021, as it ended. It is the "before" to this episode's "after".Tariff Confusion, in which Kalina Manova explains how the frequency of tariff announcements in 2025 cut trade by more than the tariffs themselves.Related reading on VoxEU.orgUS-China decoupling: Rhetoric and reality, a VoxEU column showing that after the first trade war US imports from China slowed, but supply chains for strategic products stayed intertwined with China.What comes next for global supply chains might be complicated, a VoxEU column on why a falling Chinese share of US imports does not mean Chinese firms have left the supply chain.Tariff confusion, a VoxEU column by Kalina Manova, Dennis Novy, Thomas Sampson and Aaron Tang on how confusion about current US tariffs reduced trade in 2025.

It's still unclear which congressional map will appear on Missouri's November ballot. Boone County clerk Brianna Lennon appeared live on 939 the Eagle's "Wake Up Missouri." She advises you to hold off on casting an absentee ballot until the US Supreme Court decides the case. She notes you can still view your sample ballot on her office's website:

This Day in Legal History: The Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, President George Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 into law—one of the very first acts of the very first Congress, and a document that turned the skeletal promise of Article III into a functioning national court system. The Constitution had created “one supreme Court” and left everything else to Congress's imagination. The Judiciary Act supplied the imagination: it built a three-tiered federal judiciary of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court; it fixed the number of justices at six; and it created the office of Attorney General.The Act's most consequential provision turned out to be a quiet one: Section 25, which gave the Supreme Court the power to review and reverse state-court decisions that ran against federal law or the Constitution. That authority—federal judicial supremacy over state courts on questions of federal law—was the seed of much of what the Supreme Court would later become, and Section 13 of the same Act was the very provision the Court would strike down in Marbury v. Madison, establishing judicial review itself. In other words, the machinery of American judicial power, and the Court's authority to police the boundary between state and federal law, traces directly to this statute.The significance of September 24, 1789 is that it is the architecture beneath essentially everything we cover—the district courts where cases begin, the circuit courts of appeals that review them, and the Supreme Court that sits atop it all. And it's a strikingly apt anniversary, because our lead story is that very system in action, and under strain: a dispute ricocheting between a state supreme court, a federal district judge, a federal circuit court, and the U.S. Supreme Court—the exact interplay of state and federal judicial power that the Act of 1789 first set in motion.The fight over Missouri's congressional map is back at the U.S. Supreme Court—for the third time in a month—and it has become a genuinely dizzying illustration of how tangled our courts can get. Let me trace the bouncing ball, because the procedural chaos is the story. Missouri Republicans adopted a new map in 2025 that dismantled a Kansas City district held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver, part of the Trump-backed national redistricting push. Then: on September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under state law the new map can't be used until voters approve it in a referendum. On September 8, Justice Kavanaugh, as circuit justice, rebuffed Missouri's request to intervene. On September 10, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the state from using the redrawn map, in an unsigned order with no dissent. But then a federal district judge and, this Monday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals went the other way, reviving the Republican map—which has now triggered this third trip to the Supreme Court. Here's the legal knot at the center: this is a collision between state law and federal law. The Missouri Supreme Court's ruling rests on the state constitution's referendum requirement; the federal proceedings involve federal claims about the map. Untangling which sovereign's law controls, and which court has the final say, is exactly the state-versus-federal judicial question the Judiciary Act of 1789 first tried to sort out—and today it's playing out in real time. Meanwhile, the human cost is real: more than a million potential voters are caught in the confusion, and absentee voting is already underway using the old 2022 districts. The significance is twofold—it's another test of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering, and it's a vivid, almost overwhelming example of what happens when state and federal courts point in opposite directions weeks before an election. Whatever the Court does, doing it this late, on the emergency docket, leaves election administrators and voters in an impossible bind.Battle over Missouri's congressional map reaches US Supreme Court for third time | Reuters · SCOTUSblog · CNNA federal judge has dismissed Michigan's climate lawsuit against the oil industry—and the way she did it matters, because Michigan tried a novel legal theory that just ran aground. Most of the climate suits we've seen from states and cities are built on public-nuisance and consumer-protection theories—the claim that fossil-fuel companies deceived the public about climate change. Michigan tried something different and more ambitious: an antitrust theory. Attorney General Dana Nessel accused BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute of conspiring, over decades, to suppress competition from electric vehicles and renewable energy in order to preserve fossil fuels' dominance. The idea was to reframe climate harm as an antitrust injury—collusion to kill off cleaner competitors. U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering in Grand Rapids rejected it, and her reasoning is a classic antitrust-doctrine problem: proximate cause and antitrust standing. She found that antitrust law simply doesn't protect against most of the injuries Michigan claimed, and that even for the one cognizable category—energy overcharges—”the distance is too great between the alleged conspiracy and Michigan's and its residents' overcharges” to say the conspiracy actually caused them. That's the antitrust-standing doctrine from cases in the lineage of Associated General Contractors: to sue, your injury has to be the kind antitrust law was meant to prevent, and it can't be too remote or speculative a link down a long causal chain. The significance is that this marks a setback for a creative frontier in climate litigation. The public-nuisance suits grind on in various states, but Michigan's attempt to weaponize antitrust law against Big Oil for slow-walking the energy transition has, at least here, been deemed too attenuated a theory to proceed. It's a reminder that even a compelling narrative of corporate misconduct has to fit within the specific, technical boundaries of the legal theory you choose.US judge dismisses Michigan climate lawsuit against oil companies | Reuters · Inside Climate News· US NewsAnd finally, the Musk-versus-OpenAI antitrust brawl has taken a delicious turn: OpenAI is trying to get the case thrown out by using Elon Musk's own SEC filings against him. Recall the posture we covered—Musk's xAI and X Corp sued Apple and OpenAI, claiming Apple's exclusive integration of ChatGPT into the iPhone illegally shut out rivals like Grok. Then, on September 14, Musk's companies quietly dropped Apple from the suit, leaving OpenAI as the lone remaining defendant. Now OpenAI has asked Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth for summary judgment—a ruling in its favor on the existing record, before the January trial. And its argument is beautifully simple. OpenAI points to the IPO registration statement that Musk's SpaceX filed with the SEC, and says it is “replete with disclosures diametrically opposed” to xAI's claims of competitive harm—that the rosy, optimistic picture a company is legally required to paint for investors “bears no resemblance to the doomsaying in this litigation.” Here's why this is legally clever, and it goes to the heart of securities law. When you file with the SEC, you are under a legal obligation to be truthful and not to mislead investors—so a company's SEC disclosures are treated as serious, considered admissions. If SpaceX and xAI told investors the AI market is competitive and full of opportunity, they can't easily turn around and tell a court the same market is being unlawfully monopolized to their ruin. It's the litigation version of getting caught saying two contradictory things to two different audiences—and courts do not look kindly on it. The significance is a sharp lesson that echoes my own tax-and-regulation beat: your legally-required disclosures in one forum can come back to bind you in another. You cannot tell Wall Street one story and a federal judge the opposite. Whether it's enough to end the case before trial is up to Judge Pittman, but OpenAI has landed a genuinely elegant punch.OpenAI says SEC disclosures undermine xAI's antitrust lawsuit | Reuters · PYMNTS · Unite.AI 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

9/24/26, Co-Host Andy Bukowski Rep Lindsay Sabadosa: her positions on the ballot questions. ACLU -MA Ex Dir Carol Rose: a voting rights victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, Q4—election day voter registration in MA, & nationwide election protection. Also, the ACLU/AFL-CIO report on the economic impact of Trump's deportation policies. Rev Carole Bull, Northampton-based UCC progressive interfaith pastor, on humility. "A Passion for the Planet." The performance is at Bombyx, Saturday 9/26, at 7:00. The performers include an instrumental ensemble, the soloists, three choruses and choirs, (24 members each) — the children's choir from the Community Music School in Springfield, and Concora, adult choral artists. Our guests are the composer Jeff Hudson and the solo soprano Alisa Pearson, who preview this story, told in music, of recognition, resistance and inspiration. bombyx.live The Hot Club of New England ensemble. John Anz speaks with performers Matt and Atla DeChamplain, and we hear some of their music—Gypsy Jazz, Jazz Manouche, friendship, love inspiration, and tears of joy. 5:00 Saturday, part of the Northampton Jazz Festival. northamptonjazzfest.org

A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that Missouri must use a congressional map passed last year for this November's election. That order goes against what the Missouri and U.S. Supreme Courts ordered earlier this month. STLPR politics correspondent Jason Rosenbaum shares the various legal issues at play and what may happen next.

In today's DMN Morning Debrief, North Texas faces extreme heat and air alerts while political tensions rise with recall efforts in Dallas and a high-stakes tax election concerning a new arena in Plano. Plus, an update on a legal fight involving the custody and medical decision-making of a baby born through surrogacy.  This digest was partially generated by AI and then reviewed and edited by our newsroom staff. Learn more: dallasnews.com/ai_use. We welcome your feedback: audience@dallasnews.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: The Capture of John AndréOn September 23, 1780, three American militiamen stopped a man riding toward British lines near Tarrytown, New York. Hidden in his boot were documents and maps of the fortifications at West Point. The man was Major John André, adjutant general of the British Army—and the papers exposed one of the most infamous plots in American history: General Benedict Arnold's secret agreement to surrender West Point to the British in exchange for money and a British command. Arnold escaped to the enemy; his name became a synonym for traitor. André was not so lucky.The legal aftermath is what makes this a landmark. André was tried not in a civilian court but before a board of fourteen American general officers—a military tribunal—which found him to be a spy and condemned him to death. He was hanged on October 2, 1780. And here's the part worth pausing on: André conducted himself with such dignity, and the proceedings raised such difficult questions, that his case became an enduring reference point in the law of war and the treatment of spies. Even George Washington, who approved the execution, wrestled with it. The core issues—what process is owed to someone the government has seized on national-security grounds, when a military tribunal may substitute for an ordinary court, and how a nation balances self-preservation against the procedural fairness it claims to stand for—are not relics. They run from André, through the Civil War case of Ex parte Milligan, through the World War II saboteur case of Ex parte Quirin, all the way to the post-9/11 Guantanamo litigation.The significance of September 23, 1780 is that it poses, at the very founding of the country, the permanent question of how a nation treats those it deems dangerous to its security—and how much process it owes them even so. That question is not historical trivia today. It is, almost exactly, the question in our lead story.The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the detention of a pro-Palestinian scholar—a case that squarely tests whether federal immigration law can override a noncitizen's due-process and free-speech claims. The scholar is Badar Khan Suri, an Indian citizen and postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown who was arrested by immigration authorities in March 2025, part of the administration's broader campaign to detain and deport foreign nationals who engaged in pro-Palestinian activism on U.S. campuses. A lower-court judge ordered Suri released after he argued his detention violated his First Amendment free-speech rights and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Now the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to consider whether federal immigration law actually stripped that judge of the authority to order him released in the first place. And that framing is the whole ballgame. The government's argument is jurisdictional: it contends that provisions of the immigration laws channel these disputes away from the federal district courts and their habeas power, so the judge had no business ordering release. The defense is constitutional: that no statute can wall off the courts from hearing claims that the government is imprisoning someone to punish protected speech. This is the same fight playing out in the parallel case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia activist, where a different appeals court came out the other way—setting up exactly the kind of circuit split that draws the Supreme Court in. The significance could hardly be higher. This asks whether the government can detain noncitizens based on their political speech, and whether the courthouse doors can be closed to their constitutional claims. It's the modern descendant of the André question—how much process the government owes those it deems a threat—and the Supreme Court is now being asked to answer it.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow detention of pro-Palestinian scholar | Reuters · Al Jazeera · US NewsNow a sobering story about accountability within the judiciary itself: a federal judge in Michigan will take a one-year leave from the bench to continue treatment after a drunk-driving conviction. U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington, who is 72, was arrested in October 2025 in Emmet County, in northern Michigan, with a blood-alcohol content the prosecutor put at 0.270—more than three times the legal limit, a level that falls under Michigan's “super drunk” enhanced-penalty statute. He pleaded no contest in April to misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, was sentenced in May to six months of probation and over $1,000 in fines and costs, and is now stepping back from his caseload for a year to undergo treatment, counseling, and testing. Let me talk about why this matters legally, because it's not about the criminal case, which is resolved—it's about judicial accountability. Federal judges have life tenure under Article III; they can only be removed by impeachment, which is a deliberate constitutional design to protect judicial independence. That means when a federal judge has a personal crisis like this, there's no boss to suspend them—the system relies heavily on self-regulation and on the judicial-conduct machinery, where a judge's colleagues, through the circuit's judicial council, can investigate and impose measures short of removal. Ludington's decision to take a voluntary leave and pursue treatment is that self-regulation working roughly as intended: an acknowledgment that a judge who decides other people's cases, including drunk-driving and addiction cases, has to hold himself to the standard he applies to others. And there's a compassionate dimension here too, one that connects to a story we covered recently about the legal profession's mental-health and substance-use crisis—that a 0.270 BAC is not “having a few too many,” it's a sign of a serious disease that the profession is finally learning to treat as illness rather than mere misconduct. The significance is a small but real illustration of how accountability functions for the most independent actors in our legal system, and a reminder that the bench is not immune to the profession's struggles.Michigan federal judge to remain on leave, undergo treatment after drunk-driving arrest | Reuters · The Detroit News · UpNorthLiveAnd finally, DoorDash has reached a $131.5 million settlement with New York City over how it paid—or underpaid—its delivery workers. The city found that DoorDash either underpaid workers or took too long to pay them, and the settlement breaks down in a revealing way. Nearly $115 million goes as relief to about 264,000 workers—including roughly $83 million to resolve a fight over how to calculate pay for workers who were logged into the app and on-call but not actively making a delivery, plus $12.3 million for payments that were missed or arrived days or weeks late—and there's a $16.7 million fine on top. The legal backdrop is the gig-economy pay wars, and New York City has been the most aggressive jurisdiction in the country here. The city enacted a first-in-the-nation minimum-pay standard for app delivery workers, and this settlement enforces the promise behind it—that the time a worker spends available and waiting for orders is compensable, not free labor the platform gets to ignore. That “on-call time counts” principle echoes classic wage-and-hour law, the same kind of question courts have long wrestled with under the Fair Labor Standards Act about when waiting time is working time. There's also a striking allegation in the background: the city accused DoorDash and Uber Eats of engineering “design tricks” to deprive workers of more than $550 million in tips—a reminder that in the gig economy, the design of the app itself can be the mechanism of wage theft. Now, one honest caveat for workers: DoorDash's median payout works out to about $48 per worker, so while the headline number is large, the individual relief is modest. The significance is that this is a major enforcement win for a city that has led the nation in regulating gig work, and further confirmation that “flexibility” and app-based independence don't exempt companies from the basic legal obligation to pay people for their time.DoorDash reaches $131.5 million settlement with NYC over delivery workers' pay | Reuters · NBC News · Bloomberg 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

Another U.S. Supreme Court justice is in Utah today -- the second one in just a few weeks. That feels pretty different! But what makes today's visit even more unique is why it's happening. Justice Samuel Alito is in town today to celebrate the recent appointment of one of the new justices on the Utah Supreme Court, Justice Jay Jorgensen.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

DOCKET ALERTS:   Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh and the 11 other members of the Open Markets Committee voted to raise interest rates 0.25 percent, and Trump is pissed.   The New York Times published a blockbuster story, interviewing almost all of the federal judges in Minnesota about what it was like to hold the line during the Trump administration's immigration surge into the Twin Cities.   The Trump administration is bigfooting into the states' antitrust suit to block the Paramount-WB merger. Not to support the states! To force the states to pay a $1.9 billion bond!   DOOFUS OF THE DAY:   Our Doofi of the Day is a three-judge panel at the Eighth Circuit that seems to be thinking about trying to overrule the US Supreme Court and let Missouri gerrymander another Republican seat in Congress in the 2026 midterms. It's not going to work.    MAIN SHOW: Trump is threatening to tear down the Kennedy Center and looking at mockups of the national monument demolished. Meanwhile his lackeys insist in the court that the facility is only being closed temporarily for safety.   Remember when Trump's dingbat lawyer Lindsey Halligan tried to prosecute Jim Comey and Tish James and fell flat on her face? That case got to the Fourth Circuit this week, and it's still hot garbage.   The DOJ is very busy patting itself on the back for its glorious antitrust victory against Google over the sale of banner ads. Turns out, that victory is a lot less impressive than advertised.    SUBSCRIBER BONUS:   College football coach Lane Kiffin tried to break the NCAA by recruiting pro players. His own conference sued him for… violating the First Amendment? What in the world is going on in college football, and is Ted Cruz going to ride in and save the integrity of amateur sports? (No, no he is not.) Trump's Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/17/us/politics/minnesota-judge-trump-immigration.html   California v. Paramount Skydance  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73606877/the-state-of-california-v-paramount-skydance-corporation/   Onder v. Missouri [8th Circuit docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74780310/congressman-robert-onder-v-state-of-missouri/   Beatty v. Trump https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72069932/beatty-v-trump   Oral Argument US v. Comey/James https://www.youtube.com/live/_baUl2wtXvE   DOJ Press Release, "Department of Justice Again Wins Substantial Relief Against Google," September 16, 2026 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-again-wins-substantial-relief-against-google   US v. Google [EDVa docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66753787/united-states-v-google-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc&page=1   SUBSCRIBER BONUS Southeastern Conference v. Louisiana State University [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74745193/the-southeastern-conference-v-louisiana-state-university/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

National Constitution Day is a chance for Americans to consider what the Founding Fathers wrote and how it functions within the context of our lives today. Mike Thompson, J.D., explores the rule of law.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Brad Young, KMOX Legal Analyst joins Megan Lynch every Wednesday morning. Today he looks at the verbal dust-up between Alderpersons Sharon Tyus and Rasheen Aldridge and the 7-2 decision from the US Supreme Court on Pres Trump's plan for the US Mail to interfere with delivery of mail-in ballots.

As Lithuania investigates a drone incursion, the country's defence minister tells us Nato is effectively at war with Russia.Also in the programme: President Trump lashes out at the judges he appointed to the US Supreme Court; the renewed civil war in Yemen causes huge numbers to flee, including over the sea to north Africa; and how an actor from Wales conquered US TV.(IMAGE: An Italian Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet of the kind that shot down a drone that crossed the border from Belarus into Lithuania, at the Siauliai air base in Siauliai, Lithuania on September 15, 2026 / CREDIT: Reuters)

Mark breaks down reports that AI could kill us all. President Trump has announced that if the USA doesn't get a grip on AI, it could be an issue. The Carnegie Deli opens today in NYC. Last night was the Emmy Awards, and Mark dives into this. George Stephanopoulos of ABC challenged US Rep. Mike Lawler about Trump's $5000 dividend if Republicans win the midterms.    Gavin Newsom told Jake Tapper on CNN that he may not run for President if Kamala Harris runs. Is it shady to pay for someone else's wedding? Malls seem to be making a comeback, and younger people enjoy going to the food courts.  The Houthis, who are part of Iran, are running wild and causing lots of disruption, and President Trump hasn't made a move towards them yet after a major oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia was just hit by Iran. The US Supreme Court has rejected the administration's mail-in ballot proposal to screen them. The Howard Stern Show is down to one day a week right now.  Mark interviews TV personality Rhonda Shear. Rhonda and Mark reminisce about stories from back in the day that might perk your ears up, especially stories about how guys like Bill Clinton and former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards went after women. Rhonda has a story about Edwin, too. The Kennedy Center is having some structural issues and may have to rethink keeping the building open. Macklemore has been thrown off the show with Ed Sheeran due to his Free Palestine statements. The 9-11 files that are getting ready to be released may have many warning signs about attacks under previous presidents running the country. Democrats allegedly flew in many illegals to blue states to alter votes. Concerts are happening just for dogs soon, and Mark explains.  Mark interviews streaming host Bill O'Reilly. Bill talks about his new book called "Confronting America" and how it explains that politicians need to take accountability for their actions. The chances that Dems will raise taxes are high. The flaw with the Trump admin is that he hasn't been transparent about what is going on with stuff. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Houthis, who are part of Iran, are running wild and causing lots of disruption, and President Trump hasn't made a move towards them yet after a major oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia was just hit by Iran. The US Supreme Court has rejected the administration's mail-in ballot proposal to screen them. The Howard Stern Show is down to one day a week right now.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Houthis, who are part of Iran, are running wild and causing lots of disruption, and President Trump hasn't made a move towards them yet after a major oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia was just hit by Iran. The US Supreme Court has rejected the administration's mail-in ballot proposal to screen them. The Howard Stern Show is down to one day a week right now.      Mark takes your calls!     Mark interviews TV personality Rhonda Shear. Rhonda and Mark reminisce about stories from back in the day that might perk your ears up, especially stories about how guys like Bill Clinton and former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards went after women. Rhonda has a story about Edwin, too.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

The US Supreme Court is blocking a Trump administration rule that would have restricted mail voting ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and voting rights advocates are celebrating the win. The postal service rule, by presidential executive order, would have given the executive branch unprecedented control over how Americans vote by mail and let the Postal Service refuse to send ballots to voters. Legal experts warned the screening plan posed serious risks to voting access for millions of Americans. Election officials from Arizona, Texas, and Wisconsin are relieved the court recognized that election oversight belongs to the states, not the president, and that the midterms won't be disrupted by this contested rule being implemented mid-election. Pulitzer Prize winning author and investigative journalist David Cay Johnston will stop by to discuss this and more. David Cay Johnston's Substack: https://substack.com/@davidcayjohnston Skye Perryman will join us to discuss her ongoing efforts to uphold democracy. She is the President and CEO of Democracy Forward, a nonpartisan, national legal organization that promotes democracy and progress through litigation, regulatory engagement, policy education, and research. Check out Skye's New Book: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times: How to Reclaim Your Power, Fight for Freedom, and Reimagine Democracy, comes out Learn more at democracyforward.org https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/826249/ordinary-people-extraordinary-times-by-skye-perryman/ The Mark Thompson Show 9/15/26 Today's Guests Links Prof. David Cay Johnston at RIT, Pulitzer Prize winning Author & Investigative Journalist https://bsky.app/profile/davidcayjohnston.bsky.social https://substack.com/@davidcayjohnston Skye Perryman https://democracyforward.org/ New Book, Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/826249/ordinary-people-extraordinary-times-by-skye-perryman/ Patreon subscribers are the backbone of the show! If you'd like to help, here's our Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/themarkthompsonshow Maybe you're more into PayPal. https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=PVBS3R7KJXV24 And you'll find everything on our website: https://www.themarkthompsonshow.com The Mark Thompson Show has an official new Facebook page. Please join! Here's the link: https://m.facebook.com/TheMarkThompsonShow/ Show sponsors: coachellavalleycoffee.com - use code MarkT at check out to save 10%

The Maine Supreme Court unanimously upheld a custody order prohibiting this mom from taking her 13-year-old daughter to church. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org. 

This Day in Legal History: The 16th Street Baptist Church BombingOn September 15, 1963, members of the Ku Klux Klan planted dynamite beneath the steps of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama—a hub of the civil rights movement—and detonated it on a Sunday morning. The blast killed four young Black girls: Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair. It was an act of racial terrorism aimed at the heart of a community, and it became one of the galvanizing atrocities of the civil rights era.The legal aftermath is a study in the agonizing slowness of justice. Though the FBI identified suspects within a few years, no one was prosecuted at the time—an all-too-familiar failure of Southern justice to hold white supremacists accountable for violence against Black Americans. It took fourteen years for the first conviction: Robert Chambliss, found guilty of murder in 1977. And it took until the twenty-first century for the rest—the FBI reopened the case in 1997, leading to the convictions of Thomas Blanton in 2001 and Bobby Frank Cherry in 2002, nearly forty years after the crime. A fourth suspect died before he could be charged.The significance of September 15, 1963 for the law is twofold. The bombing helped build the political will that produced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the deaths of those four girls were not in vain in the sense that they hardened the nation's resolve to write equality into law. And the decades-long road to conviction is a sobering lesson about accountability: that justice delayed is a profound injustice, but also that the law's memory can be long, and that consequences can reach the responsible actors even many years after the fact. That last idea—that accountability shouldn't expire just because time has passed or the guilty have moved on—runs, in a much quieter register, straight through my column today.In a significant loss for the administration, the Supreme Court has refused to let the U.S. Postal Service impose its new mail-ballot restrictions for this November's midterm elections—effectively ending, for this cycle, a fight we've been tracking for weeks. Recall the sequence: an executive effort to have the Postal Service dictate new requirements on how states handle mail-in ballots; a Boston federal judge, Indira Talwani, blocking it as likely unlawful because the Postal Service has no authority to control mail-in voting; the administration racing to the Supreme Court on the emergency docket; and then, just yesterday, a second judge blocking it too. Now the Supreme Court has spoken, and it kept the injunction in place, finding the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The most telling part is Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence. He didn't fully close the door on the government's statutory argument—he wrote there's “at least a fair prospect” the rule falls within the Postal Service's authority—but he said that imposing this rule in the middle of the 2026 election would be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. That's the Purcell principle in spirit: courts are extremely wary of changing election rules right before an election, because doing so breeds chaos and confusion for voters and administrators. So the practical outcome is clear: the old rules govern this midterm, and the mail-ballot restrictions are off the table for now. The significance is that the judiciary—including a conservative justice—drew a hard line against reshaping the mechanics of a national election, on the fly, weeks before people vote. The merits question may return in calmer times, but the attempt to change the rules mid-election has failed.In loss for Trump, US Supreme Court won't let Postal Service restrict mail ballots | Reuters · NPR · CNBCElon Musk's X Corp and his AI venture—now operating as SpaceXAI—have dropped Apple from the antitrust lawsuit they filed last year, while vowing to press on against their real target: OpenAI. The suit, filed in federal court in Texas, accused Apple of illegally conspiring with OpenAI to monopolize the markets for smartphones and generative-AI chatbots, essentially by baking ChatGPT into Apple Intelligence on iPhones and freezing out rival chatbots like Musk's Grok. In a court filing, Musk's companies moved to dismiss the claims against Apple—without explaining why, and without saying whether a settlement was reached—but they made clear the case against OpenAI continues. Here's the legal meat. The core theory is an exclusive-dealing and monopolization claim: the allegation that a dominant platform, Apple, and a dominant AI provider, OpenAI, struck a deal that unlawfully forecloses competitors from a critical distribution channel. That's a serious antitrust argument in the abstract—exclusive arrangements by dominant firms can violate the Sherman Act if they lock rivals out of the market. But it sits inside a very tangled rivalry: Musk co-founded OpenAI, is now its bitter competitor and litigation adversary on multiple fronts, and runs a competing chatbot. Dropping Apple while keeping OpenAI in the case tells you where Musk sees leverage—and possibly that Apple, facing its own separate antitrust battles, found a way to resolve its piece. The significance is that this is a live front in the biggest question in tech antitrust right now: as AI gets embedded into the dominant platforms we all use, who controls the gateways, and do those integration deals help consumers or unlawfully entrench the incumbents? That fight is very much still on—just now aimed squarely at OpenAI.Musk's X Corp and SpaceXAI resolve antitrust lawsuit against Apple | Reuters · CNBC · The WrapAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on a question that's playing out in Australia but has direct lessons for the U.S.: what to actually do about misconduct at the Big Four accounting firms. Australia is considering breaking up its Big Four—separating audit from consulting—in the wake of a KPMG scandal, and my argument is that structural separation, while fine, is only part of the answer, and policymakers shouldn't mistake it for a cure-all. Here's the core of the problem. KPMG Australia is accused of using confidential information from one client to win audit business from others. And here's the key insight: splitting off the consulting arm wouldn't stop that. An audit-only firm still holds confidential information its competitors don't have, and it can still be tempted to weaponize that information to win the next audit client. In fact, we've seen exactly this in the U.S.—back in 2019, the SEC settled with KPMG's U.S. firm over a partner who tried to use improperly obtained information about regulatory inspections to win audit business. Spinning off consulting wouldn't have prevented it, because the misconduct arose from competition inside the audit sector itself. So what do I actually propose? Two things. First, target how firms compete for business: require real controls on who can access confidential client and regulatory information, mandate independent review of major sales pitches by someone whose pay isn't tied to winning the contract, and let regulators spot-check bids. Second—and this is the part I care most about—fix who pays. Right now, a partner can win business improperly, collect the bonus, and leave the firm years before anyone notices. When the penalty finally lands, it's paid by the current partners, people who may have had nothing to do with it, while the wrongdoer keeps the spoils. Australia has moved to increase individual penalties, which is good, but penalties aren't the same as clawing back the money. I argue firms should structure partner compensation so that pay tied to misconduct stays recoverable for a set period—even after the partner walks out the door. The deeper principle, and you'll recognize it from today's legal-history segment, is that accountability shouldn't expire just because time has passed or the guilty party has moved on. Breaking up the Big Four might change what firms sell. But we also need to change how they win business—and who pays when the lines are crossed.KPMG Australia Scandal Shows Misconduct Rules Need Strengthening | Bloomberg Tax 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

On this new episode of THE POLITICRAT daily podcast Omar Moore on this national voter registration day across the USA --and the importance of checking your voter registration at least once a week and spreading the word. Registering people to vote is essential. Also: A comprehensive legal analysis of the US Supreme Court's late evening decision Monday to stop Donald Trump and the US Postal Service on mail-in voting. Plus: Remembering four little girls, exactly 63 years after the white terrorism that murdered them.The Supreme Court decision (Monday, September 14, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a305_4g15.pdfCHECK YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION EVERY WEEK at https://iwillvote.com and VOTE EARLY IN PERSON!!!NEWS STORY: Voter fraud is extremely rare in the USA: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/Join the SPARK community now! A Black-owned social media platform by Isaac Hayes III.Open an account today on Spark and follow Omar @ popcornreel - visit https://app.sparktheworld.app (soon to be an app)ADVISORY: This episode contains foul language. Listener discretion is advised.Recorded September 15, 2026.Subscribe on Substack: https://popcornreel.substack.comSubscribe on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@thepoliticratpodBUY MERCH FROM THE POLITICRAT STORE:https://the-politicrat.myshopify.comBUY BLACK!Patronize Black-owned businesses on Roland Martin's Black Star Network: https://shopblackstarnetwork.comBLACK-OWNED MEDIA MATTERS:(Watch Roland Martin Unfiltered daily M-F 6-8pm Eastern)https://youtube.com/rolandsmartin

US President Donald Trump has lashed out at the Supreme Court justices after they issued a ruling which blocks his executive order to restrict voting by mail before November's midterm elections.Cal Thomas and Marion McKeone join The Last Word to discuss this and more of the latest news from the United States. Catch the full chat by pressing the 'Play' button on this page!

A second federal judge has frozen President Trump's mail ballot order. AP correspondent Mike Hempen has the latest.

Send us Fan Mail"They can't just keep changing the laws on us and changing the goalposts and moving things to hide the fact that our elections are being stolen and being manipulated by computers. We are in the fight for humanity basically right now. It is as big as it gets." ~ Mike LindellJust one month after the highly contested August 11th Minnesota primary, Mike Lindell returns to The Remarkable People Podcast to expose what really happened on election night. In this explosive September 11th interview, Mike breaks down the statistical impossibilities of the election, including 55 instances of votes counting in reverse and synchronized voting percentages across all candidates.Mike details his intense legal battle with the Minnesota Secretary of State and the Canvassing Board over a paper ballot hand-count audit. After the recount price was arbitrarily hiked to $825,000 and his request was denied by the Minnesota Supreme Court, Mike is now taking his case directly to the US Supreme Court, suing the voting machine companies for operating "defective devices."This is the tip of the spear in the fight for election integrity. Discover how you can get involved using the Freedom of Information Act, why securing our elections is a spiritual battle for America's future, and how you can support the cause today.Call to Action Links:⚖️ Support the Lawsuits & Get the Plan: LindellPlan.com⚖️ Support MyPillow: Use promo code REMARKABLE for free shipping on your entire order and 50% off mattresses at https://MyPillow.com/Remarkable or when you call 1-800-644-6612.Support the showTHE NOT-SO-FINE-PRINT DISCLAIMER: While we are very thankful for all of our guests, please understand that we do not necessarily share or endorse the same beliefs, worldviews, or positions that they may hold. We respectfully agree to disagree in some areas, and thank God for the blessing and privilege of free will.For more Remarkable Episodes, Inspiration, and Motivation, please visit https://davidpasqualone.com/remarkable-people-podcast/ now!

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

DOCKET ALERTS:   The president is promising to send out $5,000 checks to every American if Republicans win the midterms.   The Fourth Circuit became the ninth appellate court to find that the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy for all immigrants without legal status is patently illegal.   The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to let it install US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. Time to bring back Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan!   Andrew and Tristan Tate's motion for bail pending their extradition to the UK was denied by a federal magistrate in Miami.   Hasbro is the latest company to tell the White House to quit using its IP in racist AI slop memes — this time the government is molesting Optimus Prime!   DOOFUS OF THE DAY:    James Piereson has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal wondering if adding new Supreme Court justices is illegal. It's not, and neither is saying absolute drivel in public.   MAIN SHOW:   We're all waiting for SCOTUS to say whether they're planning to let Trump burn down the midterms and refuse to deliver mail-in ballots. In the meanwhile, the US Supreme Court teamed up with the Missouri state Supreme Court to prevent a harebrained scheme by Missouri's Republican Secretary of State, Denny Hoskins, to cram down an even-more-gerrymandered congressional map that would give Republicans an extra seat in the House of Representatives. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the new map needs to be approved by the voters before it can take effect, and held Hoskins in contempt for refusing to abide by their September 3 injunction. And the US Supreme Court put the kibosh on a crazy TRO issued by a rogue Trump appointee purporting to require Missouri to use the Trump map. So it looks like Missourians are going to head back to the polls in November under the existing 2022 maps.   Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has a plan to hack the 2030 Census. And that plan is RACISM.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS:   We break down Law & Chaos's DOOFUS OF THE DAY, James Piereson, a non-lawyer who has the legal opinion that expanding the Supreme Court is unconstitutional, even though it definitely isn't.   Lopez Garcia v. Guadian [Fourth Circuit, mandatory detention] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72052515/oscar-lopez-garcia-v-robert-guadian/   Petition for Cert In US Attorneys Case https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-304/423324/20260908124848584_Jackson%20Petition.pdf   US v. Tate https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73656030/united-states-v-tate/   People Not Politicians v. Hoskins [MO Supreme Court] https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=239229   James Piereson, "Is Court Packing Constitutional? Don't Be So Sure," Wall Street Journal, Sep. 7, 2026 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/is-court-packing-constitutional-dont-be-so-sure-0e602345   Mail-In Ballots at SCOTUS https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/26A305.html   Proposed Census Rule Change https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/10/2026-18481/decennial-census-of-the-population-of-americans-proposed-residence-criteria-and-proposed-regulations Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Thursday, September 10, 2026Today, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied voter groups' bid to lift the restraining order keeping the Missouri Republican map in place; John Fetterman is going to speak at the Republican midterm convention via a video praising Donald Trump; Europeans investigating Epstein say the US Department of Justice refuses to cooperate; a judge has ruled that the Tate brothers are a flight risk and must remain in prison during their extradition process; Salvadorans will keep their Temporary Protected Status for now; Trump gave $45,000 in cash gifts to Natalie Harp; the LIV golf league has filed for bankruptcy; oil hits $100 a barrel as the war in Iran wages on; plus Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, IQBAR |Text DAILYBEANS to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products, plus FREE shipping. Message and data rates may apply. Blue Wave Nation | https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mswbluewave The Trump Epstein Memorial BookmobileThe Daily Beans is proud to partner with Miles Taylor and our friends at DEFIANCE.org For a limited time, members of the Daily Beans community can receive a FREE 3-month full membership to DEFIANCE.org and gain access to one of the fastest-growing pro-democracy movements in America. Join here: https://www.defiance.org/beansGuest: Amy HeutmakerTrustee in Russell Township, OhioFiscal Responsibility Is Not the Same Thing as Being Cheap | AmyHeutmaker.com The Latest Breakdown →USPS Whistleblower Lawyer Speaks OutNew Unjustified →FBI Lowers Standards with Adam KlasfeldDiamond Dames → Diamond Dames - A Ted Lasso PodcastDiamond Dames - YouTubePatreon → The Daily Beans | PatreonStoriesOil surges past $101 to highest closing level since May as Middle East conflict intensifies | NBC NewsEuropeans investigating Epstein say DOJ has not agreed to requests for help | The Washington PostSalvadorans to Keep Temporary Protected Status for Now, Trump Officials Say | The New York TimesExclusive: Fetterman to praise Trump in bombshell GOP convention video | AxiosMissouri election chief could be held in contempt for using gerrymandered map amid dueling court orders | Democracy DocketTrump gave $45,000 cash gifts to Natalie Harp, two other close aides | The Washington PostLIV Golf Files for Bankruptcy—and Owes Top Golfers Millions | WSJTate brothers lose bid for release from US jail pending extradition | ReutersGood TroubleTrump-Epstein Bookmobile, @redactedreadingroom - InstagramKhanna, Massie, Leger Fernández, Merkley, Luján Introduce the "Epstein Files Transparency Act II"Trump-Epstein Bookmobile - Allison Gill and Miles Taylor→Battleground Support Hub - Democrats.org→Voter Registration Deadlines - Vote.org→Hands Off Our Vote! 2026 Toolkit | Indivisible→Help staff your local polling place - Power The Polls→Voter Registration Volunteer Opportunities · Mobilize→Helpline Orientation- Spanish Speakers Needed! - VoteRiders→Help save Texas from Ken Paxton! →NO HATE in WA State→Stand With Minnesota →iceout.org Good NewsSenate and House Page Programs - VirginiaGov. Tina Kotek says she now supports a data center moratorium - OPBORDCDPark Pass Sleeves — Elias ButlerFresno TNRReal Escuela Andaluza del Arte Ecuestre - YouTubeCanadian Bacon - YouTubeOct 9 -Southwest Funny Fest:Dana Goldberg's Southwest FunnyFest - City of Albuquerque -Email Dana@DanaGoldberg.com for sponsorship informationTickets for Dana Goldberg: Outrageous - Sep 23 - Den Theater - Chicago →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans→Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.comSubscribe to the MSW on YouTube - MSW Media - YouTubeOur Donation LinksThe Trevor Project - trevorproject.org/beansBlue Wave California - ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwcDonate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/National Security Counselors - Donate, WhistleblowerAid.org/beansDr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers email AG - fedoath@pm.meDana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook, DanaGoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Another loss for Republicans who are trying to redraw congressional maps in as many states as they can before the midterm elections. AP correspondent Donna Warder reports.

Mark is joined by John Reeves, appellate specialist, former Assistant Missouri Attorney General, and civil law attorney with Reeves Law LLC in Clayton, to discuss the latest dramatic developments in the legal battle over Missouri's congressional map. John details the U.S. Supreme Court's decision blocking the new GOP-drawn map and reverting the state to the 2022 district lines, the procedural interplay between state and federal court orders, and the resolution of the Missouri Supreme Court's contempt hearing involving Secretary of State Denny Hoskins.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Supreme Court Decisions That Sucked Episode #2 of 4. In 1942, the U.S. government rounded up citizens and forced them into concentration camps. Between the two countries, over 140,000 people were removed from their home and interned without legal recourse. In many cases, their captors--the U.S. military--sold off their houses, businesses, and belongings for a fraction of their worth, or their former neighbors simply took what they wanted. Many, many scholars have demonstrated that the forced internment of Japanese American internment camps was racially motivated. That wasn't a secret. Lawyers and activists were writing about the injustices of Japanese internment at the time it was happening. And that racism was made precedent in 1944, when the US Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Fred Korematsu, a birthright American citizen, who tried to remain in his home in the months after General John L. De Witt declared that people of Japanese descent were to be shipped to a holding center. In today's episode, the USSC decision that sucked is Korematsu vs. United States 323 U.S. 214. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For complete Medicare guidance, dial (617) 644-0093 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter Medicare Advisors.The great and powerful Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, has just filed a brief with the US Supreme Court in defense of American's Second Amendment right to keep and bear AR-style rifles—the so-called “assault weapons” that a handful of states and every Progressive politicians wants to wrest from our grasp. The case is question is Viramontes v. Cook County, involves an Illinois “assault weapons” ban, and is a Second Amendment challenge to various state and local “assault weapons” bans. This case has been advanced by the Second Amendment Foundation and my friend Attorney Kostas Moros, once again doing stellar work in defense of American's civil rights. SCOTUS has combined this case with another AWB case, Grant v. Higgins, which involves a similar “assault weapons” ban out of Connecticut, and the legal question on such bans will likely be settled for the entire country in the Court's ultimate ruling.  Specifically, the legal question presented before SCOTUS is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The case tests how Heller and Bruen apply to commonly owned semiautomatic rifles that governments have labeled “assault weapons.”Oral argument is scheduled for December 2 of this year, and the past week has seen dozens of excellent Amici briefs submitted in support of the Second Amendment and in opposition to the bans.Prominent among these amicus briefs is that submitted this week by AAG Harmeet Dhillon, and that's the one I've selected to highlight today. Join me LIVE at Noon ET!Make sure you're ready to win the LEGAL FIGHT that follows the PHYSICAL FIGHT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself or your family from criminal predation. Learn why I am PERSONALLY a member of CCW SAFE, and why YOU SHOULD CONSIDER JOINING, TOO:  https://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafeClarence Thomas x 9: Perfect SCOTUS Mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2kFor complete Medicare guidance, dial (617) 644-0093 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter.All @TheBrancaShow mugs & MORE! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2kJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kfFOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nzEpisode #1437.Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan's contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don't directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options.

Ralph welcomes sportswriter Dave Zirin to talk about his new book, "The People's Historian: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn." Then Ralph speaks to labor activist Gene Bruskin about their upcoming Labor Day event at Busboys and Poets in DC, "Galvanizing Labor Day for a Workers' Compact."Dave Zirin is the sports editor for The Nation, a columnist for the Progressive, and the author of eight books on the politics of sports, including What's My Name, Fool?: Sports and Resistance in the United States and A People's History of Sports in the United States. His new book is The People's Historian: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn.There's a despondency that exists now, I believe, among people who are also very angry about the state of our politics. And the thing that Howard always insisted upon—he was an activist who happened to be a historian, not a historian who was an activist. And that doesn't denigrate his incredible skills as a historian, it just says where his priorities were in his time on this planet. And one of the things that Howard believed so strongly is that the movements themselves needed to have a strong sense of history. The movements needed to know that we live in a time of great ups and downs.Dave ZirinPeople did step up to create the Zinn Education Project. And every book event I'm doing, I'm showing up with copies of their materials and they usually have somebody on the ground doing the organizing at the event. And at the very least, we're helping it be a little bit sticky. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's not just a book event. It's not just celebrating Howard. But it's also something that allows us to be able to make it matter in a way that it otherwise would not—because it's not just about selling books, it really is about building a movement.Dave ZirinGene Bruskin is a veteran of the labor movement as a local union president, an organizer, and campaign coordinator for numerous local and national unions. He has done extensive international labor solidarity work, including with Iraqi workers and unions, and is a founder of US Labor Against the War.What we're breaking through here now (and partly this has been the definition of this resistance movement) it's workers versus billionaires. And I think the labor movement in general coming out of World War II has been captured by this mythology that “What's good for General Electric is good for the nation.” And the more the economy “prospers,” the more it's good for everybody. And it turns out that that's not really the case, because we don't have that kind of equality. And also what's in the national interest in terms of our foreign policy is not in the interest of the average working class person. A lot of that stuff is being challenged and reversed—not enough, but it's forcing some of the more moderate forces to the left, just as we're seeing in some of these Senate and House elections.Gene BruskinI think this is a really important moment for Labor Day because Labor Day, among other things, is generally the kickoff for whatever elections are happening in November. And it's going to be that on steroids this year. But I think the important thing is that, of course, we want to throw out a bunch of these Neanderthal Republicans in the House and Senate. But it's not just a matter of restoring a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. The question is: to what end? And what is on the agenda of a Democratic-majority Congress at this minute? What is the vision that we have for our future that we have to be fighting for? … We have to change this whole climate so that people have some kind of hope, some kind of vision for what we want and what we deserve. And the same old, same old, whether it's a Democratic Congress or not, is not acceptable anymore.Gene BruskinGalvanizing Labor Day for a Workers' Compact (Sep 7, 2026 2:00 pm ET): Busboys and Poets and Ralph Nader present Galvanizing Labor Day for a Workers' Compact, a discussion of how unions can maximize the impact of Labor Day to mobilize workers and voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and afterwards. (Event is in-person @ Busboys and Poets 14th & V + Livestreamed. Free and open to all, but registration is required.)News 9/4/26* Our top story this week is the neo-colonial oil extraction deal that has been struck between the Trump administration and the government of Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela. This government has been running the country under the barrel of a gun since Trump sent Delta Force to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro from his home in the Bolivarian Republic in January. According to the BBC, the new deal “grants a US-led company 100-year concessions over 17 oilfields in Venezuela, amounting to a staggering 65 billion barrels of crude,” or over one-fifth of the country's proven oil reserves. The White House has released a fact sheet, stating that much of the new extraction will be conducted by North American Blue Energy Partners (Nabep), and that the U.S. government will have “veto power over the appointment of any member of the board of directors, and a majority of Nabep's board of directors must be US citizens.” The announcement of this deal drew scorn from a wide variety of sources. These range from Trump's former special representative on Venezuela and Iran, Elliott Abrams who called the deal “terrible” and sees it as Rodríguez “simply complying with the demands she's getting from Washington,” to Rafael Ramírez, who served as the head of the state-run energy firm, PDVSA, and as the oil minister under former President Hugo Chávez, who is quoted saying the deal “hands over [the oil] and opens the doors to a new colonialism of the United States.”* In more outrageous foreign policy news, Reuters reports the Trump administration has designated the United Kingdom-based pro-Palestine activist group Palestine Action a ”terrorist organization,” part of the administration's “campaign to crack down on left-wing groups” using post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws. The United Nations has decried this move, with the UN's human rights office chief Volker Turk calling it a “disproportionate and unnecessary ⁠restriction on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association as well as the right ​to participate in public affairs,” adding that the “expansive use ​of the term ‘terrorism' has been documented to have a chilling effect on civic space.” The UK has sought to bring the legal hammer down on Palestine Action, though these efforts have been somewhat stymied by the courts. Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar of global expression at free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Free Expression (FIRE), ​said that the US “must reject that censorship - not import it.” Reuters notes that “Israel's foreign ministry welcomed the designation.”* This is not the only case wherein the Trump administration has gone to extreme lengths to punish pro-Palestine activism. California District Judge Noel Wise highlighted this in her recent decision, excoriating the State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for their attempts to deport noncitizens over protected speech. This ruling, stemming from a lawsuit filed by FIRE, “centred on how the second Trump administration revoked visas and detained international students studying in the US after they engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.” Judge Wise stated in her decision that “in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people..It is not the government's to take.” She added that the strength of our democracy is “diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave' or suffer the government's retaliation.” Mahmoud Khalil, the most prominent victim of the administration's policy of seeking to deport activists they want to silence, applauded the decision, saying “No one should fear speaking up for Palestine.” This from Al Jazeera.* Our final Palestine-related story for this week takes us to Hollywood, where prominent actor and activist Mark Ruffalo's recent comments in opposition to the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. merger, related to Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison's ties to his father's software company Oracle, have been cynically branded as “antisemitic tropes.” According to the LA Times, Ruffalo shared a clip of Safra Catz, Oracle's former CEO and a current Paramount board member speaking at an Israeli-American Council National Summit conference, where she said that “she couldn't discuss Oracle's work with Israel's military, but ‘we have some profoundly scary technology at Oracle and we wanted to make sure that it was available' to Israel,” after October 7th. Paramount's lawyers quickly sought to smear Ruffalo with the charge of antisemitism, including by deploying their allies in pro-Israel groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League. In response, over 150 Jewish filmmakers, academics, writers and even rabbis, signed an open letter which reads, in part, “Pointing out the crucial connections between what is happening in Gaza and what is happening in Hollywood is the exact opposite of antisemitism. It is, for us, the very essence of Jewish ethical duty.”* In other news, NBC reports the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Friday that “federal commodities-trading law does not preempt Nevada's gambling law as to the regulation of placing wagers on sports.” This piece notes that the 3-0 ruling marks the prediction markets industry's most significant legal setback yet and sets up a showdown at the Supreme Court, since the Third Circuit has already ruled that New Jersey cannot regulate Kalshi. The Trump administration has sought to keep regulation of betting markets under the jurisdiction of the federal body known as the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Notably, the commission, usually composed of five appointees, currently boasts only one single member: Michael S. Selig. Selig is extremely friendly to the prediction market industry and has sought to stave off state-level regulation by arguing for federal preemption.* Kalshi has been in the news for other reasons as well, namely for its attempts to self-regulate. For one, the Wall Street Journal reports that Kalshi issued its first ever lifetime ban this week, to none other than former Congressman and notorious grifter George Santos. This ban was precipitated by Santos' making over $17,000 by “placing bets on his attendance at President Trump's State of the Union address.” Kalshi adds that they issued a $71,356 fine to Santos. For his part, Santos tweeted “Hey @Kalshi thanks for the lifetime ban from your gambling platform…Let's see how much longer you guys are around for.” Newsweek reports that at the same time, Kalshi fined and suspended North Carolina Republican congressional candidate Laurie Buckhout for betting on her own race. Buckhout dismissed her bet as a “dumb mistake” and joked that her “career as a Kalshi trader was short-lived.” Buckhout is running against incumbent Congressman Don Davis in a newly-redrawn district engineered to favor Republicans, but polling shows a tight race. If Buckhout narrowly loses, many will point to this “dumb mistake” as a key reason why.* Another legal battle is unfolding in New York City, where landlords are challenging Mayor Zohran Mamdani's rent freeze for rent-stabilized tenants. PIX11 reports that the suit, originally filed in Staten Island but now moved to Manhattan, centers on complaints from landlords that the decision by the rent guidelines board (RGB) to keep rents flat on one and two-year lease renewals for NYC's million rent-stabilized apartments was “predetermined and illegal.” They argue that the board “cherry-picked data and was packed with supporters of Mayor…Mamdani's campaign promise to freeze rents,” while the Mamdani administration maintains that the board is an “independent body and considers both tenant and landlord concerns.” The mayoral administration will defend the decision in court, while the Legal Aid Society and Legal Services NYC have filed a request for the court to dismiss the suit entirely. An article in POLITICO from earlier this month reports that the plaintiffs in this suit hope to bring this case all the way to the US Supreme Court.* Our final stories this week take us back to the campaign trail. First up, Alaska Public Media is out with a report about a “chain of political maneuvers in the governor's race,” kicked off by former Anchorage mayor Tom Begich's “decision to step down to give fellow Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins a better shot at winning.” Kreiss-Tomkins finished first in the August primary, followed by Begich in second place and two Republicans in third and fourth respectively. Under Alaska election law, the top four finishers advance to the general election. This piece recounts how Begich's withdrawal sent shockwaves through the Republican candidate field. With Begich out, “Republican Treg Taylor moved into the fourth spot. But on Sunday, Taylor called for [fellow Republicans Bernadette] Wilson and [Dave] Bronson to consolidate their campaigns and pledged to endorse a combined Republican ticket. In a statement, Taylor urged Republicans to unite behind a single candidate, to counter Kreiss-Tompkins.” While fascinating for political junkies, many have observed that the maneuvers on display here and in Alaska's Senate race seem to undercut many of the arguments in favor of ranked-choice voting, with more effort being put into confusing voters or seeking to induce so-called “ballot exhaustion” rather than facilitating a more enlightened civil discourse.* Our final two stories cover the Massachusetts primaries held this Tuesday. The topline, as Semafor reports, is that incumbents swept their primaries in a stark reversal of the insurgent trend in Democratic primaries this cycle. The most notable of these was the crushing victory of 80-year-old incumbent Senator Ed Markey over his 47-year-old challenger, Congressman Seth Moulton. Markey won with approximately two-thirds of the vote. This piece notes that Moulton, younger but running to Markey's right, was never able to establish the “generational change” dynamic he wanted in this race, as “progressives and LGBTQ rights groups rallied behind…[Senator Markey].” On this latter point, Moulton was roundly criticized by Democratic voters, even in his own district, for “scapegoating” transgender people in the wake of the 2024 election. Reporter Dave Weigel adds a coda to this piece: “The subtext of Markey ‘26 was that he would be a reliable progressive vote for whatever the movement wanted for six more years, and then Ayanna Pressley could come in and replace him. Pressley campaigned [with] Markey, starred in ads; [and] at rallies he gushed about how she was the ‘north star' and if you wanted to know what the right side of an issue was, it was the side she was on.”* Finally, with all of that said, the pro-incumbent wave in Massachusetts did cut both ways. Progressive challengers to moderate Democrat incumbents fell short in the state's eighth congressional district – reelecting Congressman Stephen Lynch for a 14th term over progressive voting rights advocate Patrick Roath. Meanwhile, in the first district, WAMC reports Congressman Richie Neal, a longtime scourge of progressives, fended off a primary challenge from teacher Jeromie Whalen in his bid for a 20th term in the House – though Whalen, a political newcomer, won an impressive 46% of the vote. Neal will however face the formidable independent candidate Nadia Milleron in the general election. Milleron won nearly 40% of the vote against Neal in 2024; perhaps, if she wins over enough of Whalen's primary supporters, she can pull out a victory in November.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

This episode is sponsored by Revelation Gold Group – Democrats in Congress opposed a resolution to set the number of US Supreme Court justices at the current nine seats. But they also oppose expanding the court while Repubicans are in control of the House, Senate, and White House. So, it seems like they are actually looking to pack the court when they take control of those branches of government. Which made me wonder: Does Roy Cooper support this? We don't know because his website makes no mention of it. And reporters don't ask. Also, does he support socialism? His fellow Democrats also opposed that resolution this week. Maybe a reporter could get around to asking that, too.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast My preferred podcast platform: SpreakerCheck out my preferred gold & silver company: Revelation Gold GroupHelp support Pete's Walk to End Alzheimers here.All the links to Pete's Prep are free! Plus get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com  

Episode 4213 │ September 2, 2026 Mike Lindell offered to pay for a full recount. Minnesota agreed, then only let him count two of seven candidates. He's suing to find out why. WHAT THIS EPISODE COVERS  Scott Kesterson sits down with Mike Lindell for a full update on the aftermath of his Minnesota gubernatorial primary loss — polling seven and a half points ahead after Trump's endorsement, then losing by eleven amid vote-count deviations his team describes as synchronized percentage patterns across seven candidates that never varied regardless of which county or precinct reported. Lindell details his fight to fund a full paper-ballot hand recount under Minnesota law, only to have the Secretary of State's office change the terms at the last moment to count just two of seven candidates' ballots, forcing a temporary restraining order and now an appeal headed to the US Supreme Court. The conversation moves through the Smartmatic defamation case — where a Minnesota judge ruled Lindell guilty by summary judgment even after Smartmatic itself was confirmed guilty of bribery and election corruption in newly declassified evidence — and the FBI's Operation Arctic Frost investigation, opened after a voting machine company complained to federal law enforcement, with newly unredacted documents showing key figures in the Colorado Dominion case were never questioned while Lindell and Tina Peters faced prosecution. The episode closes with Lindell's call for a national emergency declaration on election security ahead of the midterms and his LindellPlan.com effort to collect voter roll and county data nationwide. KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED  What happened on election night in the Minnesota primary — and why does Lindell describe every candidate's reported vote share holding to the exact same percentage across thousands of ballots regardless of which county or precinct the votes came from? Why did Minnesota's Secretary of State agree to a full paper-ballot recount Lindell was paying for, then narrow it at the last moment to only two of seven candidates — and what does the resulting Temporary Restraining Order and Supreme Court appeal reveal about who controls the process when a candidate tries to verify the count? What is Operation Arctic Frost, and why does newly declassified evidence showing Smartmatic was already confirmed guilty of bribery and election corruption in multiple countries — while a Minnesota judge still ruled Lindell guilty of defaming the company — raise the question of who inside government was actually protecting whom? ABOUT BARDSFM BardsFM is a daily independent podcast covering faith, liberty, history, and information warfare. Hosted by Scott Kesterson — combat veteran, documentary filmmaker, and rancher. Over 4,100 episodes and 50 million lifetime downloads. New episodes every weekday. bards.fm This episode was researched and produced under the Spatial Terra Intelligence Methodology (STIM v5) — the analytical framework built by Scott Kesterson — with AI-assisted research synthesis at a 70/30 human/AI authorship ratio, fully disclosed. All analysis, conclusions, and editorial judgments are those of Scott Kesterson. BardsFM's archive includes hundreds of episodes on prayer, scripture, and walking the Way of Christ — available free in the full episode catalog. DOWNLOADS Citizen's Guide - Community Organizing Against Data Centers: click here Citizen's Guide - Auditing Automatic License Plate Readers: click here Citizen's Guide - Auditing Your State's Driver License Data: click here AFFILIATE LINKS Bards Nation Health Store: www.bardsnationhealth.com MYPillow promo code: BARDS >> Go to https://www.mypillow.com/bards and use the promo code BARDS or... Call 1-800-975-2939.  EMPShield protect your vehicles and home. Promo code BARDS: Click here Treadlite Broadforks...best garden tool EVER. Promo code BARDS26: TreadliteBroadforks.com EnviroKlenz Air Purification, promo code BARDS to save 10%: www.enviroklenz.com Morning Intro Music Provided by Brian Kahanek: www.briankahanek.com Founders Bible 20% discount code: BARDS >>> TheFoundersBible.com Windblown Media 20% Discount with promo code BARDS: windblownmedia.com White Oak Pastures Grassfed Meats, Get $20 off any order $150 or more. Promo Code BARDS: www.whiteoakpastures.com/BARDS Mission Darkness Faraday Bags and RF Shielding. Promo code BARDS: Click here DONATIONS: If you wish to support this podcast directly you can donate here... DONATE: Click here MAILING ADDRESS: Xpedition Cafe, LLC Attn. Scott Kesterson 591 E Central Ave, #740 Sutherlin, OR  97479