Podcasts about us supreme court

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC News

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

From November 8, 2020 (Episode 279): Billy Easley sits down with former host Ashkhen Kazaryan. They remind us of the value of the free and open Internet.Links:Revising the Law That Lets Platforms Moderate Content Will Silence Marginalized VoicesFree Speech and Tech Policy at the US Supreme Court, 2025 (AEI Event)

I'm not a political scientist but there is a legal process and political process when it comes to redistricting. Lawmakers running away from their responsibility is not one of them! This episode is brought to you by Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/DRPHIL and use code DRPHIL to get our exclusive discount of up to 40% off. Subscribe | Rate | Review | Share:  YouTube: https://bit.ly/3H3lJ8n   Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/4jVk6rX Spotify: https://bit.ly/4n6PCVZ Website: https://www.drphilpodcast.com 

Don't leave your retirement to chance. Design It. Join us for six Fridays starting on October 3rd and get moving on your roadmap. Learn more here. __________________________ On this episode of The Retirement Wisdom Podcast, we're joined by Nathalie Martin, author of The Inspired Retirement, an excellent new book that will help you reframe what it means to retire well. In today's conversation, she challenges the assumptions many people bring to retirement—and shares how mindfulness, clarity, and intention can lead to a more inspired next chapter. What You'll Learn Why the ‘three plagues' of aging are avoidable How three non-financial pillars of retirement are gamechangers How mindfulness and movement can enhance your life Why one-size-fits-all approaches to purpose miss the mark—and what to do instead A practical exercise to prioritize what matters most in your life as you plan for retirement Nathalie Martin joins us from New Mexico. __________________________ Bio Nathalie Martin is a chaired professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, where she teaches mindfulness and law as well as elder law, commercial law, and consumer law. A longtime yoga and meditation teacher and practitioner, she also teaches contemplative practices in varied settings, from hospitals and senior centers to law school classrooms. Nathalie is the author of over forty articles and nine books, including Lawyering from the Inside Out and Yoga for Lawyers, and her legal scholarship has been cited by the US Supreme Court. With The Inspired Retirement, Nathalie brings her decades of experience and expertise to a general audience. __________________________ For More on Nathalie Martin The Inspired Retirement: Purpose and Passion in Your Next Adventure Website: nathaliemartinmindfulness.com ___________________________ Podcast Conversations You May Like Retiring: Creating a Life That Works for You – Teresa Amabile Happier Hour – Cassie Holmes, PhD Live Life in Crescendo – Cynthia Covey Haller ____________________________ Mentioned in This Podcast Conversation Being Mortal by Atul Gawande ____________________________ About The Retirement Wisdom Podcast There are many podcasts on retirement, often hosted by financial advisors with their own financial motives, that cover the money side of the street. This podcast is different. You'll get smarter about the investment decisions you'll make about the most important asset you'll have in retirement: your time. About Retirement Wisdom I help people who are retiring, but aren't quite done yet, discover what's next and build their custom version of their next life. A meaningful retirement doesn't just happen by accident. Schedule a call today to discuss how the Designing Your Life process created by Bill Burnett & Dave Evans can help you make your life in retirement a great one — on your own terms. About Your Podcast Host Joe Casey is an executive coach who helps people design their next life after their primary career and create their version of The Multipurpose Retirement.™ He created his own next chapter after a 26-year career at Merrill Lynch, where he was Senior Vice President and Head of HR for Global Markets & Investment Banking. Joe has earned Master's degrees from the University of Southern California in Gerontology (at age 60), the University of Pennsylvania, and Middlesex University (UK), a BA in Psychology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and his coaching certification from Columbia University. In addition to his work with clients, Joe hosts The Retirement Wisdom Podcast, ranked in the top 1% globally in popularity by Listen Notes, with over 1.6 million downloads. Business Insider recognized Joe as one of 23 innovative coaches who are making a difference. He's the author of Win the Retirement Game: How to Outsmart the 9 Forces Trying to Steal Your Joy.

The internet is cracking apart. It's exactly what some politicians want.In June, a Texas law that requires age verification on certain websites withstood a legal challenge brought all the way to the US Supreme Court. It could be a blueprint for how the internet will change very soon.The law, titled HB 1181 and passed in 2023, places new requirements on websites that portray or depict “sexual material harmful to minors.” With the law, the owners or operators of websites that contain images or videos or illustrations or descriptions that “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors” must now verify the age of their website's visitors, at least in Texas. Similarly, this means that Texas residents visiting adult websites (or websites meeting the “one-third” definition) must now go through some form of online age verification to watch adult content.The law has obvious appeal from some groups, which believe that, similar to how things like alcohol and tobacco are age-restricted in the US, so, too, should there be age restrictions on pornography online.But many digital rights advocates believe that online age verification is different because the current methods used for online age verification could threaten privacy, security, and anonymity online.As Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, wrote in June:“A person who submits identifying information online can never be sure if websites will keep that information or how that information might be used or disclosed. This leaves users highly vulnerable to data breaches and other security harms.”Despite EFF's warnings, this age-restricted reality has already arrived in the UK, where residents are being age-locked out of increasingly more online services because of the country's passage of the Online Safety Act.Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Jason Kelly, activism director at EFF and co-host of the organization's podcast “How to fix the internet,” about the security and privacy risks of online age verification, why comparisons to age restrictions that are cleared with a physical ID are not accurate, and the creation of what Kelley calls “the grey web,” where more and more websites—even those that are not harmful to minors—get placed behind online age verification models that could collect data, attach it to your real-life identity, and mishandle it in the future.“This is probably the worst thing in my view that has ever happened to our rights online.”Tune in today.You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and whatever preferred podcast platform you use.For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.Show notes and credits:Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative...

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Throughout American history, lawmakers have limited the range of treatments available to patients, often with the backing of the medical establishment. The country's history is also, however, brimming with social movements that have condemned such restrictions as violations of fundamental American liberties. This fierce conflict is one of the defining features of the social history of medicine in the United States.  In Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America (Oxford UP, 2021), Lewis A. Grossman presents a compelling look at how persistent but evolving notions of a right to therapeutic choice have affected American health policy, law, and regulation from the Revolution through the Trump Era. Grossman grounds his analysis in historical examples ranging from unschooled supporters of botanical medicine in the early nineteenth century to sophisticated cancer patient advocacy groups in the twenty-first. He vividly describes how activists and lawyers have resisted a wide variety of legal constraints on therapeutic choice, including medical licensing statutes, FDA limitations on unapproved drugs and alternative remedies, abortion restrictions, and prohibitions against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Grossman also considers the relationship between these campaigns for desired treatments and widespread opposition to state-compelled health measures such as vaccines and face masks. From the streets of San Francisco to the US Supreme Court, Choose Your Medicine examines an underexplored theme of American history, politics, and law that is more relevant today than ever. Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire.

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Trump administration is asking the US Supreme Court to lift a temporary restraining order that restricts indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests across much of Southern California. The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego has launched a new interfaith ministry, to accompany refugees and asylum seekers at immigration court. Reporter: Alexander Nguyen, KPBS San Luis Obispo County Supervisors voted this week to accept more than $300,000 in federal grants from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That's despite criticism of the agency's immigration enforcement policies. Reporter: Gabriela Fernandez, KCBX At Google's San Francisco offices Thursday, Governor Gavin Newsom announced a new joint effort with four top tech giants to better prepare California's students for the future of work. Reporter: Rachael Myrow, KQED The 29th annual Tahoe Summit brought together lawmakers, tribal leaders, and environmentalist to discuss the future of the basin. Reporter: Maria Palma, KUNR Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In today's episode of iGaming Daily, sponsored by Optimove, SBC Media Managing Editor Jessica Welman is joined by International Masters of Gaming Law (IMGL) President and Jones Walker partner Marc Dunbar and they tackle the legal mess that is Kalshi sports contracts.Dunbar gives his tips on which courts to pay attention to and offers an idea of just how long this legal battle is going to stretch on. With four active court cases and two of those in the appeals courts, there is a lot to break down, but Dunbar clears the signal from the noise and offers his insight on what judges will focus on and why the PASPA repeal is a good case to use to benchmark expectations.Host: Jessica WelmanGuests: Marc DunbarProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldiGaming Daily is also now on TikTok. Make sure to follow us at iGaming Daily Podcast (@igaming_daily_podcast) | TikTok for bite-size clips from your favourite podcast. Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.Article Linkshttps://sbcamericas.com/2025/08/03/kalshi-injunction-maryland-loss/https://sbcamericas.com/2025/08/01/maryland-sport-contract-ruling-kalshi/

On this week's podcast,  Wild Westendorf returns and joins Bob for a varied and lively conversation. They discuss a case out of Wyoming regarding publicly owned land intermingled with private land in a checkerboard layout, and how the private landowner, who has lost previous court decisions, is now asking the US Supreme Court to forbid the public from hopping over his land to access the public lands. While the implications are serious, Bob thinks the idea that someone owns the "air space" over their property is stupid. Also, Bob talks about social media topics where recreationists provide opinions, often not nice ones, about what other hikers wear, or equipment they use, or how fast or slow they hike. Bob wonders why these posters seem to think anyone cares about their opinions and why they think they are necessary. Also, El Paso County is looking for new members of its park advisory board; Bob has added a new gallery to his photography website; and why this podcast isn't also a video production. Wyoming "air space" case: https://tinyurl.com/bek5jsu2 Bob's photography website: https://tinyurl.com/4yfupr3b El Paso County Park Advisory Board opening: https://tinyurl.com/24vjxaef Please consider becoming a patron of this podcast! Visit: https://www.patreon.com/hikingbob for more information Hiking Bob website: https://www.HikingBob.com Wild Westendorf website: https://wildwestendorf.com/ Where to listen, download and subscribe to this podcast: https://pod.link/outdoorswithhikingbob

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

Last month, America marked 60 years of Medicare and Medicaid as a lifeline for the elderly and vulnerable. Not long after that, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ensure racial discrimination would find no place in America's elections. But it's back, thanks to a politicized US Supreme Court and an all-out assault by a sitting president on anything resembling racial justice. Civic Media news director Chali Pittman tells us how recent events play a role in Wisconsin elections too. Chad Holmes brings some positive news from Wausau. Mornings with Pat Kreitlow is powered by UpNorthNews, and it airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-9 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast line up. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and YouTube. Guests: Chad Holmes, Chali Pittman

The case of Texas legislators leaving the state in order to delay rigged Republican congressional maps evokes memories of what happened before Act 10 in Wisconsin in 2011. But the similarity goes deeper than that. States are in these positions of corrupt cartography because right wing justices on the US Supreme Court wouldn't step in when Wisconsin Republicans rigged our own maps during former Gov. Scott Walker's administration. Is there a path forward that doesn't involve a race to the bottom when it comes to politicians trampling on voters who just want fair elections? Also: Shawn Phetteplace talks about how Main Street Alliance is giving voice to small business owners getting hit hard by Trumponomics. Mornings with Pat Kreitlow is powered by UpNorthNews, and it airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-9 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast line up. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and YouTube.

The US Supreme Court just set the stage for the biggest change to our congressional maps that we've ever seen, and it's flying completely under the radar. Brian interviews Governors Wes Moore, JB Pritzker, and Kathy Hochul– all of whom discuss their response to Texas redistricting. And Pod Save America's Jon Favreau discusses Trump's Epstein scandal and what's next for Kamala Harris.Shop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The US Constitution establishes what the US Supreme Court has the power to rule on. But recently the Supreme Court has chosen not to rule on a variety of major cases that fall under its jurisdiction.

Part 4: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II.C and the first two paragraphs of Roman Numeral III only in this episode, and stop at his III.A. We'll cover his III.A next time. Part 4. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

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

THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW 0:00 SEG 1 St. Louis County Executive Sam Page indicted 18:02 SEG 2 ZACK SMITH, Sr. Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation | TOPIC: Top legal headlines of the day | Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker and associate of Jeffrey Epstein, has requested that the US Supreme Court overturn her conviction, saying she was unjustly prosecuted. | Trump’s appointments to the bench | Mamdani wanting to defund the police https://x.com/tzsmithhttps://www.heritage.org/staff/zack-smith 34:47 SEG 3 CHRIS’ CORNER is about the Democrats’ plans for 2028 | Kamala not running for California governor https://newstalkstl.com/ FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps 24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW 0:00 SEG 1 St. Louis County Executive Sam Page indicted 18:02 SEG 2 ZACK SMITH, Sr. Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation | TOPIC: Top legal headlines of the day | Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker and associate of Jeffrey Epstein, has requested that the US Supreme Court overturn her conviction, saying she was unjustly prosecuted. | Trump’s appointments to the bench | Mamdani wanting to defund the police https://x.com/tzsmithhttps://www.heritage.org/staff/zack-smith 34:47 SEG 3 CHRIS’ CORNER is about the Democrats’ plans for 2028 | Kamala not running for California governor https://newstalkstl.com/ FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps 24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week we talk about lobbying, Steam, and adult-themed games.We also discuss cultural influence, extreme ideologies, and itch.io.Recommended Book: Limitarianism by Ingrid RobeynsTranscriptIn mid-July of 2025, Valve, the company behind the gaming platform Steam, announced that it was tightening its adult-only content guidelines, its not-safe-for-work content, basically, following pressure by the payment processing companies it works with.Its new policy even says that “content that may violate the rules and standards set forth by Steam's payment processors and related card networks and banks, or internet network providers” is not allowed on Steam's network, which in practice means these games will be more difficult to find and purchase, because of Steam's prominence in the non-console gaming space.About a week later, the founder of Itch.io, another gaming marketplace that's similar in some ways to Steam, as it allows creators to sell their games to folks who use the platform, but which is a bit smaller and more focused on indie games, said that itch.io would likewise be removing NSFW, adult-themed games from its catalog, due to concerns that the payment processors they work with have communicated to their company.In no uncertain terms, he said itch.io wouldn't be able to operate without these payment processors, so they had to “prioritize our relationships with our payment partners and take immediate steps toward compliance.”The folks whose games were removed from itch.io as part of this purge were given no warning, and many critics of the decision have pointed to similarities between this gaming-world censorship, as they see it at least, and what happened back in 2018, when social platform Tumblr banned pornographic content, the company's owner citing pressure from credit card companies as the rationale for that decision—a decision that led to a huge exodus of users from the platform and a whole lot of criticism from creators, users, and folks who keep tabs on censorship-related issues.There's been a lot of the same in response to these moves by itch.io, Steam, and similar platforms which have recently decoupled themselves from certain types of adult content, and statements from these companies seems to be illustrative of what's happening here: they're completely reliant on these payment processing companies to exist, because without them they can't easily accept money for what they're selling. Thus, they'd better comply with what these companies tell them to do, or else.There have been claims from some folks who have watched this sort of purge occur in other corners of the web over the years that credit card companies are anti-porn and anti-anything-NSFW because the chargeback rate is huge in these spaces—something like 10-times the number of chargebacks, which is what happens when customers say they didn't buy something, and in some cases then get their money back, after the fact, compared to the next-highest facet of the payment processing industry. And that's both a pain and potentially expensive.Others have pointed out that these sorts of purges tend to be political in nature: the groups that push payment processors to adopt these stances are typically vehemently anti-porn, either ultra-conservative or radical-feminist in nature—two ideologies that are oppositional in many ways, but they loop back around when it comes to some topics and have similar, burn it all down ideas about adult content; we don't approve, so let's get rid of all this stuff that we don't approve of by whatever means necessary.In most cases this means lobbying to get influence in various political spheres, including with politicians who control various governments' relationships with these payment processors. If they can get the ear of those who make the rules to which these payment processors must adhere, they can then threaten the payment processors—who in many countries, though especially the United States, have pretty sweet deals that allow them to more or less collect a tax on every payment made for everything across every sector—saying, well, we can push our friends in the government to take those sweetheart deals away. So unless you want to suffer that consequence, push these customers of yours to take down this stuff we don't like.What I'd like to talk about today are some similar and overlapping movements that are beginning to see censorship-related success across these and other aspects of the web, and the seeming purpose behind these pushes to censor and purge and create the apparatuses by which censorship and purges can be more thoroughly performed.—One of the big concerns about banning certain types of games is that games are just content, and if you're able to find a reliable means of banning one type of content, you can then, in theory at least, using that same lever to ban other types of content, like books, articles, films, and so on. Some of the stuff banned on itch.io were essentially just books, in fact.If you can reliably ban any type of content, you can shape the information ecosystem to reflect one world view, and that's the sort of thing that tends to distort entire societies, creating an artificial, unreflective view of the world that adheres to the beliefs, values, and perspectives of one group while ignoring or putting down, or even outlawing the beliefs, values, and perspectives of others.It's easy to miss that when talking about the banning of adult-themed video games, and many of the games that were banned on Steam and itch.io contained themes like incest and rape—taboo themes that many people have ideological issues with, not just standard-fair pornography, whatever that even means these days.That said, this same general approach has been used to great effect by interest groups using the same general language, that we need to protect women, or we need to protect the children, won't someone think of the children, to ban books that feature any kind of queer content, or adult-adjacent themes; nothing pornographic, but themes that don't line up, often, with a particularly conservative, Christian, no-sex-before-marriage ideology.So if you're in that interest group and have those beliefs, these sorts of bans make a certain kind of sense if you want to enforce those beliefs on others and ensure the media ecosystem reflects your beliefs and nothing else, but if you don't share those beliefs, well, this lever could be used to ban all the stuff you want to see and learn about and consider, and can be very oppressive.The group behind the recent Steam and itch.io bans, Collective Shout, is run by an Australian political activist named Melinda Tankard Reist who describes herself as an advocate for women and girls and a pro-life feminist. And she's dedicated herself, among other things, to banning adult films, blocking musical artists from performing in Australia if their work contains lyrics she doesn't approve of, and to removing pornographic games from platforms like Steam, alongside games that contain LGBTQ characters or have references to domestic violence, including those that present content meant to help people who have suffered domestic violence recover from that experience.A very specific ideology, then, that she has dedicated her life to enforcing on the larger media ecosystem, and thus, society as a whole.There's a parallel and in some cases interrelated movement happening globally right now, especially in the UK and US, but in some other countries, too, to varying degrees, oriented around age-gating online content.The British government, for instance, recently approved the Online Safety Act of 2023, which they've said is intended to protect children from pornographic content on the internet.This law is enforced by an age-gate, which means requiring that people who want to access such content prove they are old enough to access it, usually by uploading their government issued ID, taking a selfie, which is then assessed to see if they're obviously old enough, or uploading something like a bank card that a child wouldn't have.This law punishes online platforms that don't implement these sorts of age-gate systems, though apparently they're incredibly ineffective and easy to bypass, as all you have to do is use a VPN to make it look like you're in another country, and the age-gates go away; that loophole might eventually disappear, as this is something that is still being rolled out, but that's the general concept and intention here.The problem with these sorts of age-gates, as noted by all sorts of activists across the political spectrum, is that what's appropriate and not appropriate is often being determined by people with views and beliefs that are in some way radical and different from that of the average person where these laws are being passed—usually those with more conservative, and thus constrictive ideas about what should be allowed—and that means, again, the informational ecosystems in these places are being reshaped to match that of these extremist people, who either found themselves in the right political positions, or who have over time purchased influenced with the politicians who are helping to make these laws.The situation is similar in some parts of the US, where age-gating laws are beginning to see implementation in conservative states like Texas, where First Amendment challenges to a recently passed age-gate law were rebuffed by the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of those passing the law; the US Supreme Court has a large conservative majority right now, and relationships with some of the folks pushing these laws, so this isn't terribly surprising.That law, HB1181, which is one of many currently in the works or recently passed in the US, 21 states have a law similar to this, as of mid-2025, and it will require websites with adult content implement age-gating filters to prove users are 18 or older, or, as in the UK, they will be punished.Also as in the UK, there are relatively simple workarounds to all of these age verification requirements, but there are fears that these sorts of rulings will mostly fail to protect children from anything, and will predominantly be used by radicals with control over aspects of the government to reshape the media and culture in their ideological image.The folks behind the ultra-conservative Project 2025 plan, the Heritage Foundation, for instance, have said that this is exactly what they intend; by age-gating content they don't like, they can shape the next generation, and as a nice side benefit, these sorts of filters becoming common makes online identity verification the default, not the exception. And that means it's easier to track everyone, adult and non-adult, online, attaching their real identity to their behaviors, which can make it easier to pressure or punish folks who do things they don't like in the otherwise anonymized online world.This has raised all kinds of alarm bells with First Amendment and freedom of speech activists, but it's of-a-kind with those aforementioned efforts by folks trying to ban certain types of content in video games and books; if the idea is to reshape everything so that your views are the only ones people see, and anything else is taken down or outlawed, this is one way to accomplish that, even if at first it might simply seem like an attempt to ensure children don't see nude bodies or sexual acts in their video games.Similar filters are being tested, both in the practical sense and the legal and political sense, in five EU nations, and a bunch of other countries around the world right now, often by people with the same conservative political slant as in the US and UK, but in some cases by other characters who have similar ambitions with a slightly different ideological tinge.There is some evidence that pornographic content influences children in negative ways, and there's some evidence that porn, in general, is not super great for relationships, societies, and individuals.That said, almost all of these cases have been brought by people or groups with larger interests in shutting down all sorts of content; so calls to protect the children, while perhaps sometimes true, also seem to almost always be a legal foot in the door that then allows for more, next-step censorship, of things and ideas they don't like and want to ensure no else can access, in subsequent years.Show Noteshttps://action.freespeechcoalition.com/age-verification-bills/https://www.theverge.com/internet-censorship/686042/supreme-court-fsc-paxton-porn-age-verification-rulinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reisthttps://www.rte.ie/news/2025/0704/1521746-meta-eu/https://web.archive.org/web/20250719204151/https://www.vice.com/en/article/group-behind-steam-censorship-policies-have-powerful-allies-and-targeted-popular-games-with-outlandish-claims/https://www.readtangle.com/porn-age-verification-law-upheld-by-supreme-court/https://archive.is/20250715004830/https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/five-eu-states-test-age-verification-app-protect-children-2025-07-14/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2dohttps://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/enforcement-programme-to-protect-children-from-encountering-pornographic-content-through-the-use-of-age-assurancehttps://archive.is/20250725221633/https://www.theverge.com/analysis/713773/uk-online-safety-act-age-verification-bypass-vpnhttps://www.polygon.com/news/615910/itchio-steam-sex-adult-games-delisting-pulled-vice-controversyhttps://www.theverge.com/news/712890/itch-removes-adult-nsfw-games-steam-payment-providershttps://itch.io/updates/update-on-nsfw-contenthttps://www.ign.com/articles/valve-pulls-adult-only-games-from-steam-as-it-tightens-rules-to-appease-payment-partnershttps://www.theverge.com/2022/9/29/23377446/tumblr-matt-mullenweg-post-nsfw-porn-internet-service-moderation-policieshttps://www.gamesradar.com/games/it-might-be-porn-games-now-but-they-wont-stop-there-game-devs-join-players-and-artists-rallying-against-credit-card-companies-after-mass-nsfw-game-delisting/https://www.seamlesschex.com/blog/chargeback-rates-by-industry This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

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

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

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Eve Espey discuss the impact of the US Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v Wade. Dr. Espey explains that 41 states have abortion bans, with 12 states imposing total bans and 28 states restricting based on gestational duration. She highlights the increased maternal mortality and health risks due to these restrictions. She also emphasizes the need for continued advocacy and training for medical professionals in reproductive health care.    Key Takeaways: The overturning of Roe v Wade reversed about 50 years of women's reproductive rights. In many states, the Roe v Wade protections had been chipped away over the years, even before it was overturned.  Abortion bans are about more than abortion - they affect women's health care in areas of family planning, cancer screenings, and basic preventative health care. Contraception and abortion are integral parts of comprehensive women's health care.   "We do have a very energized group of people around this issue and much more scholarship and advocacy than in days past. So I would say we need to keep up the fight, and we need to keep supporting our learners to really understand why this care is so important and how to provide it." —  Dr. Eve Espey   Episode References:  Aid Access: https://aidaccess.org/en/  Reproductive Justice: https://www.sistersong.net/reproductive-justice    Connect with Dr. Eve Espey: Professional Bio: https://hsc.unm.edu/directory/espey-eve.html    Connect with Therese: Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net Threads: @critically_speaking Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net      Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.    

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

In early 1948, Los Angeles couples were terrorized by a series of robberies and car thefts committed by a criminal the press dubbed “The Red Light Bandit,” a reference to the red light he used to flag down his victims. Fortunately, the bandit's crime spree was quickly cut short when police arrested Caryl Chessman, a Los Angeles resident with a criminal history going back to his teen years.Chessman was charged with multiple counts of robbery, rape, grand theft, and because of an unusual interpretation of events, he was also charged with kidnapping. Due to the attachment of kidnapping, several of the charges were defined as a capital offense and Chessman was convicted and sentenced to death.In the years following his conviction, Chessman's death sentence became a source of considerable controversy—an already controversial sentence applied in a non-lethal case due to a bizarre application of the law. For ten years, Chessman fought the sentence all the way to the US Supreme Court, with support from a wide variety of sources, both notable and ordinary. Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research and Writing support!ReferencesChessman, Caryl, and Joseph Longstreth. 1954. Cell 2455, Death Row: A Condemned Man's Own Story. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.Erikson, Leif. 1960. "Chessman executed with a smile on his lips." Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, May 2: 1.Los Angeles Evening Citizen News. 1948. "Mother on stretcher testifies for 'genius'." Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, May 10: 1.—. 1948. "Wild chase nets 'Red Light Bandit' suspects." Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, January 24: 3.Los Angeles Times. 1941. "Crime victims point to youths." Los Angeles Times, February 14: 2.—. 1943. "Honor farm escapee says he only lost his memory." Los Angeles Times, September 5: 14.—. 1948. "Red-Light Bandit receives two death sentences." Los Angeles Times, June 26: 17.Pasadena Independent. 1948. "Red Light Bandit strikes again." Pasadena Independent, January 20: 8.People v. Caryl Chessman. 1959. CR. 5006 (Supreme Court of California , July 7).Press-Telegram. 1941. "Five bandit suspects held in shootings." Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA), February 2: 1.Ruth, David E. 2014. "'Our free society is worthy of better': Caryl Chessman, Capital Punishment, and Cold War culture." Law, Crime and History 31-55.Time Magazine. 1960. "The Chessman affair." Time Magazine, March 21.Times, Los Angeles. 1948. "Bandit using red spotlight kidnaps girl." Los Angeles Times, January 23: 19.—. 1948. "Deasth asked in Bandit case." Los Angeles Times, May 19: 32.Stay in the know - wondery.fm/morbid-wondery.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

If you are feeling afraid to click on news stories every time a decision gets handed down by the US Supreme Court, you're not alone. But some recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions are bringing much-needed good news in the fight to protect our environment. Host: Amy Barrilleaux Guest: Evan Feinauer, Clean Wisconsin attorney Resources for You:  Episode 29: Trump's threat to safe water (and how WI can fight back) Episode 24: What Trump 2.0 means for our environment  Episode 20: Supreme Court power grab

The Trump administration is back at the US Supreme Court, with yet another soundly reasoned legal argument by Solicitor General John Sauer. This time the argument is whether an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, federal district trial court judge can order the Article II Executive Branch to continue funding an executive agency of which the judge is fond. Notably, this very question was decided by the Supreme Court only four months ago, in essentially an identical case with identical facts.But the inferior federal courts continue to act in open rebellion against the Article III Supreme Court, as well as against the Article I Legislative Branch and the Article II Executive Branch.In other words, the unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district trial courts have seized a claimed authority that is superior to the entirety of our Constitutional order. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

This Day in Legal History: National Security Act of 1947On this day in legal history, July 25, 1947, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, fundamentally reshaping the American national security infrastructure in the wake of World War II. The legislation created a unified framework to coordinate defense and intelligence operations, aiming to prevent the bureaucratic fragmentation that had plagued wartime decision-making. One of its central provisions was the formation of the National Security Council (NSC), designed to advise the president on domestic, foreign, and military policies related to national security.The Act also established the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which replaced the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and became the first peacetime intelligence agency tasked with gathering, analyzing, and coordinating intelligence. Additionally, it created the National Military Establishment (later renamed the Department of Defense in 1949), which consolidated the War Department and the Navy Department under a single executive authority.Within the National Military Establishment, the Act preserved the autonomy of the Army and Navy while officially creating a separate branch: the United States Air Force. It also formalized the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide coordinated military advice to civilian leadership. These structural reforms sought to ensure more cohesive planning and execution of U.S. defense policy during a time of growing Cold War tensions.The legislation marked a profound shift in how the federal government approached global strategy, institutionalizing the military-intelligence bureaucracy that would define American power projection for decades. It also laid the legal groundwork for the modern national security state, with broad implications for executive authority, covert operations, and civil-military relations. As Cold War dynamics evolved, the institutions born from this Act became central to both overt diplomacy and covert action around the world.Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence for aiding Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Her legal team argues that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement made with Epstein in Florida should have shielded her and other associates from future federal prosecution. The case raises a significant legal issue: whether plea deals made by one U.S. Attorney's Office bind other federal jurisdictions. This question has divided circuit courts, increasing the chances the Supreme Court might take up the case when justices return from summer recess in late September.The Justice Department under Trump acknowledged the legal split but urged the Court to deny Maxwell's appeal, arguing that plea agreements are binding only between the negotiating parties. Maxwell's defense contends the 2007 deal's broad language promised immunity for co-conspirators nationwide, and that allowing prosecutors to renege undermines trust in the justice system. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supports her petition, citing the widespread use of plea agreements in American jurisprudence.The case unfolds amid renewed political pressure over Epstein-related disclosures, with Trump's administration walking back earlier commitments to release more records. The political sensitivity may affect the Supreme Court's willingness to get involved, especially given the presence of three Trump-appointed justices. Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman noted the unusual breadth of Epstein's original deal might make this a poor case for setting a national precedent, despite its legal significance.Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from US Supreme Court | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to implement major funding cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, arguing the cuts align with its broader effort to dismantle federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. A lower court had blocked the move in June, with U.S. District Judge William Young ruling that the cuts were unlawfully arbitrary and lacked clear justification, violating administrative law. The decision came after lawsuits from a coalition of researchers, public health groups, and 16 states led by Democratic administrations, who argued the grant cancellations were politically motivated and targeted research associated with DEI or gender identity.The administration contends that continuing to pay the $783 million in grants contradicts its policy goals. The Justice Department is also challenging the venue of the lawsuits, arguing they should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in monetary claims against the federal government. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected that argument, refusing to pause Judge Young's ruling.Judge Young, despite being a Reagan appointee, sharply criticized the administration's actions as lacking any rational explanation and as ideologically driven. He noted that officials failed to define DEI while broadly discrediting grant-supported research without evidence. Critics, including NIH employees and scientists, have warned that the cuts undermine scientific integrity and public health.The Supreme Court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been receptive to Trump administration appeals in similar cases. In April, it allowed comparable cuts to teacher training grants to proceed. The administration hopes for a similar result in this case.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts | ReutersGlass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), two leading proxy advisory firms, have filed lawsuits against Texas over a new state law restricting their ability to advise shareholders on environmental, social, governance (ESG), and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) matters. Proxy advisors provide independent recommendations to institutional investors—such as pension funds and asset managers—on how to vote on issues at shareholder meetings, including board elections, executive compensation, and corporate policies. This means their influence is significant in shaping corporate governance across markets.The new Texas law, signed by Governor Greg Abbott, requires these advisors to include disclaimers stating their recommendations may not be in the financial interest of shareholders and to back up ESG or DEI-related advice with financial analysis. Glass Lewis and ISS argue the law violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to include government-mandated speech that contradicts their independent analysis and perspectives.Filed in federal court in Austin, the lawsuits name Attorney General Ken Paxton as the sole defendant. Both firms contend the law is politically motivated and will damage their reputations, cost them clients, and undermine shareholder oversight of corporate boards. ISS also criticized the law as serving to protect corporate executives from accountability, labeling it "anti-capitalist" and counter to shareholder interests.The legal challenge comes amid a broader rollback of corporate DEI programs nationwide and is part of a trend in Republican-led states to push back against what they see as left-leaning influence in financial decision-making. The law is scheduled to take effect on September 1, unless blocked by the court.Glass Lewis, ISS sue Texas over law limiting DEI, ESG proxy advice | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Enrique Granados.This week's closing theme is Granados' masterwork Goyescas, Op. 11, a piano suite composed in 1911 and widely regarded as the Spanish composer's magnum opus. Subtitled Los majos enamorados (The Gallants in Love), the suite captures the spirit and elegance of 18th-century Madrid, evoking a romanticized world of passionate young lovers, elaborate dress, and melancholic reverie. Granados drew inspiration from the art of Francisco Goya, though the individual pieces are not linked directly to specific paintings. Instead, they are tonal impressions—musical vignettes steeped in the colors and textures of Goya's Spain.Goyescas is divided into two books. Granados premiered Book I on March 11, 1911, at the Palau de la Música Catalana in Barcelona, showcasing his own virtuosic pianism. Book II followed in December of that year and was first performed in Paris at the Salle Pleyel on April 2, 1914. Each movement in the suite is rich with rhythmic flair, lyrical warmth, and emotional depth, capturing the elegance of Spanish courtship rituals and the melancholy undercurrents of unfulfilled longing.The suite's most famous piece, Quejas, o La Maja y el Ruiseñor (Lament, or The Maiden and the Nightingale), would later be famously echoed in the song “Bésame Mucho.” Granados' idiomatic use of ornamentation, rubato, and folkloric rhythms set a high watermark for Spanish piano music and influenced later composers such as Albéniz and Falla. Through Goyescas, Granados created a work that is both a tribute to Goya's vision and a deeply personal expression of turn-of-the-century Spanish romanticism.Without further ado, Enrique Granados' The Gallants in Love, the third movement, El Fandango del Candil. Enjoy! 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

The final US Supreme Court decisions of the term continue the assault on Reconstruction-era federal law, suborning the “neo-Confederate” agenda of reasserting racialized citizenship and dismantling protections clearly intended to be enshrined in US law in the Reconstruction Constitutional amendments. By restricting judicial orders to named plaintiffs, the Court once again attempts to curb collective legal remedy, hinting perhaps that the next step may be a frontal assault on birthright citizenship. These maneuvers are not isolated; they reflect a broader effort to preserve legal standing for whiteness. As politically backward states like South Carolina restrict access to health care and religious zealots seek the Court's blessing to opt out of tolerance for others, the messages seem clear: Protect a narrow ideological whiteness, shield elite interests, and suppress the multiracial majority through judicial capture. This week's New York City mayoral primary signaled that such a strategy is doomed to long-term failure when people mobilize to resist. A central question lingers: What does freedom mean now, and for whom?JOIN KNARRATIVE: https://www.knarrative.com it's the only way to get into #Knubia, where these classes areheld live with a live chat.To shop Go to:TheGlobalMajorityMore from us:Knarrative Twitter: https://twitter.com/knarrative_Knarrative Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/knarrative/In Class with Carr Twitter: https://twitter.com/inclasswithcarrSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Apollo 11On July 24, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission concluded when astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins safely splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the first successful lunar landing. While the event was widely celebrated as a scientific and political triumph, it also raised an unexpectedly terrestrial legal issue: customs law. Upon returning to Earth, the astronauts were required to fill out a standard U.S. Customs declaration form. The departure point was listed as “Moon,” and the flight number: “Apollo 11.” Among the items declared were “moon rock and moon dust samples,” brought back from the lunar surface.Despite their unprecedented journey, the crew still had to comply with Department of Agriculture and Customs rules designed to monitor and control potentially hazardous biological materials. In the “Declaration of Health” section of the form, they noted that the presence of any condition that could spread disease was “To be determined.” This moment captured how U.S. law, even in its most routine forms, extended to the edge of human experience.The astronauts' re-entry into the U.S. technically triggered the same legal processes that greet travelers arriving from abroad. This event also underscored the broader legal challenge of adapting existing statutes to cover entirely new domains like space travel. Though humorous in hindsight, the customs declaration reflected a serious concern: whether extraterrestrial material might carry unknown biological risks.The completed form, now a historical artifact, reminds us that legal frameworks often evolve reactively. In 1969, space law was largely uncharted territory. Today, those early steps form part of the foundation for international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty and modern debates over resource rights beyond Earth.The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reversing a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the dismissals. The CPSC was established by Congress in 1972 as an independent agency to protect the public from hazardous products, and its members were traditionally shielded from at-will removal by the president. The justices, in a brief unsigned order, suggested that Trump was likely to prevail in arguing that the Constitution gives him broad authority to remove executive officials, even from agencies Congress meant to be independent.This move followed a June ruling by District Judge Matthew Maddox, who sided with the ousted commissioners, citing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) that upheld removal protections for independent agency officials. The Supreme Court's majority, with all three liberal justices dissenting, appeared to undermine that precedent. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned that using the Court's emergency docket to erode agency independence risked shifting constitutional power toward the presidency.The fired commissioners, whose terms extended through 2025 to 2028, had sued Trump, arguing their removal lacked legal justification. Their attorney, Nicolas Sansone, criticized the Court's decision as harmful to public safety oversight. The Justice Department, however, contended that limiting the president's removal power was unconstitutional.This decision echoes a similar ruling in May allowing Trump to remove members of other federal boards, reinforcing a pattern of the Court endorsing expanded executive control over federal agencies.US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners | ReutersSupreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials - BloombergU.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a June 30 opinion in a securities fraud case against CorMedix Inc. after attorneys pointed out significant factual and legal errors. Lawyers flagged that the opinion included invented quotes, misattributed statements, and references to non-existent or misidentified cases. Among the problems was a supposed quote from Dang v. Amarin Corp. about “classic evidence of scienter,” which does not appear in the actual case, as well as misquoted content from a case involving Intelligroup and a fabricated citation to a Verizon case in the Southern District of New York.The withdrawn opinion had denied CorMedix's motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about its FDA approval efforts for the drug DefenCath. CorMedix's counsel, Andrew Lichtman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, raised concerns but clarified he wasn't seeking reconsideration, only correction of the record. The same opinion had been cited as persuasive authority in a separate but similar shareholder lawsuit against Outlook Therapeutics Inc., before being discredited due to its inaccuracies.The incident drew attention not just for the mistakes themselves, but because judicial errors of this nature are rare—especially when resembling the kind of AI-generated errors that have recently led to lawyer sanctions. There is no indication AI was involved in drafting Judge Neals' opinion, but the situation reflects heightened scrutiny of legal drafting in an era where reliance on technology is increasing.Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up QuotesColumbia University has agreed to pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration, resolving federal investigations and securing the reinstatement of most of its previously suspended federal funding. The dispute stemmed from Columbia's handling of pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged antisemitism, which led the administration in March to freeze $400 million in grants. In addition to the main settlement, Columbia will pay $21 million to resolve claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.The agreement includes several conditions: Columbia must discipline students involved in severe campus disruptions, reform its Faculty Senate, review its international admissions process, and overhaul its Middle Eastern studies programs to promote “viewpoint diversity.” The university is also required to eliminate race-based considerations in hiring and admissions and to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.Columbia has agreed to appoint two new administrators: one to oversee compliance with the settlement and another to address antisemitism. The university has also severed ties with the pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest and adopted a new definition of antisemitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism—moves that have sparked backlash among students and faculty.Rights advocates have voiced alarm over academic freedom and due process, especially amid reports of deportation attempts against foreign pro-Palestinian students. Critics say the government is equating legitimate political protest with antisemitism, while ignoring rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias.Columbia University to pay over $200 million to resolve Trump probes | ReutersFrench President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, alleging she spread false and harmful claims about Brigitte's gender identity. The suit centers on Owens' podcast series Becoming Brigitte, which claims Brigitte was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—actually the name of her older brother—and accuses the couple of incest and identity fraud. The Macrons argue these assertions amount to a global smear campaign intended to boost Owens' profile and cause personal harm.Owens responded by labeling the lawsuit a politically motivated PR move and maintained it is an attack on her First Amendment rights. Her spokesperson framed the suit as a foreign government's attempt to silence an American journalist. The Macrons, however, stated that they had made multiple requests for a retraction, all of which Owens ignored.Defamation lawsuits by sitting world leaders are rare, and as public figures, the Macrons must meet the high legal bar of proving “actual malice”—that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint also notes the rumors originated in 2021 and were amplified by other high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. A similar French court case involving Brigitte ended in a temporary victory, but was later overturned on appeal and is now pending before France's highest court.French president Macron sues right-wing podcaster over claim France's first lady was born male | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/CiCMWBvk-AM In a July 17th hearing, Judge Hippler lifted the non-dissemination (gag) order in the Bryan Kohberger case, emphasizing the public's right to information, especially since a plea has been entered. However, he clarified that the court's prior preservation order remains in place, and sealed documents are still sealed. The media's petition to unseal all documents was denied as premature. The judge stated that after sentencing, scheduled for July 23rd, the court will begin reviewing sealed materials to determine what can be unsealed, starting with the newest documents first. This process will allow counsel to object to unsealing specific documents or request redactions. He warned that this unsealing process will take a considerable amount of time, and public records requests for sealed documents will be denied until they are officially unsealed. The judge also addressed the right to appeal, noting that while Kohberger's plea agreement includes a waiver of appeal rights, the US Supreme Court's ruling in Garza v. Idaho indicates that a defendant's right to file the appeal. Therefore, the appellate process is expected to play out. The investigation into document leaks is ongoing. RESOURCES Bryan Kohberger Case Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKASBczV3CsUx-t5oRAK0ca Leaked Kohberger Information The Emily Show - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSMQMdNDKE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rob McKenna on the US Supreme Court case that could dismantle the Voting Rights Act // Gary Horcher in Boise on the sentencing hearing of Bryan Kohberger // Aaron Navarro at the White House with a report on the latest Trump reaction to Jeffrey Epstein rumours // Paul Holden on the delicate art of glass blowing at the boat house

With the split in the appeals court, the High Court now has the opportunity to enforce and extend this protection for girls and women. 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 .

In today's turbulent global political landscape, relationships between the people, organized groups and the state is shaped by interactions frought with compromise, confrontation, containment, and control. This week's moment of confrontation between state representatives of South Africa and the United States provide opportunities to examine where unresolved historical trauma, structural inequality, and ideological warfare define terrains of struggle in the Contemporary World System.South African President Ramaphosa's recent US visit saw a propaganda assault from the U.S. President featuring inaccurate and unintentionally ironic uses of images from anti-Apartheid era cultural and political struggles as well as current struggles in the Democratic Republic of Congo which highlight continuing instances of state violence and neocolonial entanglements. While white nationalist in both South Africa and the United States continue to enjoy racially-engendered economic status advantage, a small Black managerial elite in both countries thrives as the majority in both countries either remain impoverished or are threatened with even more economic marginality. Oppression reflected in populist movements like South Africa's Economic Freedom Fighters and the US's Repairers of the Breach afford another opportunity to compare efforts of social confrontation and political compromise. As Trump repeated lies about South Africa, the United States moved another step toward its own political and economic reckoning. The Trump-deployed “Project 2025,” spearheaded by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and others, took more steps in its efforts to entrench extreme wealth inequality while seeing other efforts to advance a white Christian theocracy fail at an increasingly besieged US Supreme Court. The propaganda-labeled “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by the US House of Representatives is a blueprint for dismantling democratic safeguards and weaponizing the state to favor corporate and white nationalist interests. As has always been the case, this moment demands intellectual warfare, legal resistance, and community-based institution-building. The people must decide: compromise, confront, contain—or control.JOIN KNARRATIVE: https://www.knarrative.com it's the only way to get into #Knubia, where these classes areheld live with a live chat.To shop Go to:TheGlobalMajorityMore from us:Knarrative Twitter: https://twitter.com/knarrative_Knarrative Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/knarrative/In Class with Carr Twitter: https://twitter.com/inclasswithcarrSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

US Supreme Court greenlights destruction of Department of Education / UK police use Palestine Action proscription to target protest mentioning “Gaza” and “genocide” / Indiana Kroger workers reject second sellout contract approved by UFCW Local 700

It's Tuesday, July 15th, A.D. 2025. 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 Sudanese Christians in the crosshairs Sudanese Christian churches are being systematically destroyed by military forces.   According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a persecution watchdog, the Rapid Support Forces bombed the Sudanese Episcopal Church, the African Inland Church, and the Roman Catholic Church in Al-Fashir, the capital of North Darfur State just last month. And the Sudan Armed Forces destroyed a Pentecostal church complex in Khartoum last week. Persecuted Chinese church perseveres Chinese Pastor Wang Yi's church has continued moving ahead despite their pastor's arrest and 9-year-prison sentence.   According to China Aid director, Bob Fu, they have planted two additional churches,  Praise God that the Chinese House Church movement is growing. That's not the only thing growing.  So is the homeschooling movement, reports World Magazine in an article entitled, “Hard choices ahead for homeschoolers in China.” Kentucky church shooter killed 2 women, wounded policeman The suspect in a church shooting in Lexington, Kentucky, has been identified as 47-year-old Guy House. An aspiring rapper, House shot a police officer and killed two women at Richmond Road Baptist Church, before he was shot down by police officers. The wounded police officer is recovering. Two other church members were also wounded in the shooting, reports The-Independent.com. Revelation 13:10 leaves us this promise: “He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” Pro-perversion and pro-abortion European group targets Christians The European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights has issued a report attacking the Christian faith.  It was funded by George Soros and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The report cites the enemy, by listing Christian people and organizations who represent traditional Christian values. Paul Coleman, Director of Alliance Defending Freedom International,  called the report “a thinly veiled attempt to silence ideological opponents under the guise of academic research,” reports Hungary Today. Bitcoin doubled in value in one year The value of one Bitcoin has topped $120,000, reports NBC News. That's almost exactly double what it was just a year ago, and twelve times the value of five years ago.   Gold is up 40% over a year ago, and silver is up 28%. Ground beef hit $6.67 a pound on a national basis last week. That's a 3-fold increase from where it was in 2010 at $2.20 a pound. And the size of the national herd of cows has dropped to 86.7 million head. That's the lowest level since 1951. Russia using 3,450 drones against Ukraine per month Russia has stepped up its drone attacks on Ukraine since the beginning of the year, now averaging 3,450 drones per month. That's up from about 1,000 drones per month in 2024.   A total of 136 drones were counted Sunday night over Ukraine. President Donald Trump announced yesterday, the United States would be providing more Patriot missiles to Ukraine, for shooting down Russian missiles. Judge blocks defunding of Planned Parenthood in new law A federal district judge has arbitrarily blocked the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.   Judge Indira Talwani's order purports to force the Trump administration to defy a federal law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President. Supreme Court gives Trump green light to dismantle Dept of Education Yesterday, the US Supreme Court issued a decision allowing for the Trump administration's plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, reports NBC News.   In a 6-3 vote, the high court allows for Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to fire 1,400 employees — amounting to about half of the department workforce. Trump's 2026 budget funds 2,179 employees compared to 4,099 working during the 2024 fiscal year. More young adults lean Republican Young people are moving Republican. A new Yale Youth Poll finds 18 to 21-year-olds leaning Republican by 12 points, while the older group of 22 to 29-year-olds still favor Democrats by 6.4 points.  Trump reflects on assassination attempt anniversary Yesterday, President Donald Trump reminisced on how his life was saved from the assassin's bullet a year ago in this exchange with a reporter. REPORTER: “On this one year anniversary of Butler, what was going through your mind this morning when you woke up. I know that you're praising God you're alive, but a lot of people want to know how you've taken this day on this one year anniversary.” TRUMP: “God was protecting me, maybe because God wanted to see our country do better, or do really well, make America great again. But God was protecting me, Brian, I'll tell you. I have a job to do, so I don't like to think about it much. It's a little bit of a dangerous profession, being President.” Proverbs 19:21 reminds us of God's sovereign hand over all of our doings: “Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the Lord's purpose that prevails.” What are the most and least rewarding college disciplines? What's the best bang for the college enrollment buck? A recent study found that for best starting pay and employment numbers, Civil engineering, Construction Services, Aerospace Engineering, and Nursing are the best majors. By contrast, Anthropology, Sociology, and Fine Arts are the worst for starting pay. Pastor John MacArthur died And finally, this just in. Pastor John MacArthur has passed on to glory, reports The Christian Post. Recognized worldwide, as a definitive leader among conservative Evangelicals and reformed Christianity, Pastor John led Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California for 56 years. Remarkably, he authored nearly 400 book titles. He preached the authority of Scripture and was defiant in the face of ongoing COVID-19 lockdowns. The MacArthur Study Bible sold two million copies, and his commentary series sold another one million copies. Master's Seminary, over which John MacArthur presided, enrolls 700 men, and his sermons are still heard over 1,000 radio stations across America through the Grace to You ministry. Listen as he eloquently explains the spiritual significance of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. MacARTHUR: “Second Corinthians 5:21 – ‘He made Him who knew no sin, sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.'  Let me unpack those 15 Greek words. He, God, made Jesus sin. What do you mean He made Jesus sin? Only in one sense. He treated him as if He had committed every sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe, though, in fact, he committed none of them. “Hanging on the cross, He was holy, harmless, undefiled. Hanging on the cross, he was a spotless lamb. He was never, for a split second, a sinner. He is holy God on the cross, but God is treating him -- I'll put it more practically -- as if He lived my life. God punished Jesus for my sin, turns right around and treats me as if I lived His life. “That's the great doctrine of substitution. And on that doctrine turned the whole reformation of the church. That is the heart of the Gospel. “And what you get is complete forgiveness, covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. When He looks at the cross, He sees you. When He looks at you, He sees Christ.” On the Grace to You ministry's X account, they posted, "Our hearts are heavy, yet rejoicing, as we share the news that our beloved pastor and teacher John MacArthur has entered into the presence of the Savior. This evening, his faith became sight." Pastor John is survived by his wife, Patricia Smith MacArthur; children Matt, Mark, Marcy, and Melinda; 15 grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. He was 86 years old at his death.  And we may add, Pastor John MacArthur was a big encouragement to the Generations Ministry and our publications ministry over the last few years. Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, July 15th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

E Jean Carroll, who holds almost $100 million in judgments against Trump for being sexually abused and constantly defamed by him, just won again in a pivotal appeals case. Ms. Carroll, with her intellectual fortitude and strength of character, shows us how to beat Trump like a bad habit, as she puts her cases on the doorstep of the US Supreme Court. Check out the LAF video with E Jean Carroll here: https://youtu.be/q5gL3H1tuZ8 For 15% off your order, head to https://SimplerHairColor.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Jilted lovers and disrupted duck hunts provide a very odd look into the soul of the US Constitution.What does a betrayed lover's revenge have to do with an international chemical weapons treaty? More than you'd think. From poison and duck hunts to our feuding fathers, we step into a very odd tug of war between local and federal law.When Carol Anne Bond found out her husband had impregnated her best friend, she took revenge. Carol's particular flavor of revenge led to a US Supreme Court case that puts into question a part of the US treaty power. Producer Kelsey Padgett drags Jad and Robert into Carol's poisonous web, which starts them on a journey from the birth of the US Constitution, to a duck hunt in 1918, and back to the present day. It's all about an ongoing argument that might actually be the very heart and soul of our system of government.Special thanks toSignup for our newsletter!! It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)!Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today.Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org.Leadership support for Radiolab's science programming is provided by the Simons Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

President Trump announced on social media that Iran and Israel have agreed to a total ceasefire, and the US Supreme Court says the Trump administration will be allowed to quickly deport immigrants to countries they are not from. Also, New York City's Democratic mayoral primary is today. It's a tight race that's brought attention to the city's ranked-choice voting system.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Roberta Rampton, Gigi Douban, Andrea De Leon, Janaya Williams and Alice Woelfle. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Zo van Ginhoven. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy