Podcasts about us supreme court

Donald Trump's vowing to fight the ruling that many of his imposed trade tariffs are illegal. The US Court of Appeals has ruled Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to impose the sweeping import tariffs. The tariffs remain in place until mid-October to allow a Supreme Court appeal. Waikato University international law expert Al Gillespie says it's a 50-50 chance whether or not Trump's appeal will be accepted by the Supreme Court. He says that although Trump has a balance that favours him in the Supreme Court, the American judges are independent people. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Constitutional Convention–Article IIIOn August 27, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia turned their attention to the judiciary. Debates centered on what would become Article III, particularly the scope of judicial power. The Convention approved language stating that federal judicial power would extend to “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,” a formulation that blended common law tradition with equitable relief. This phrase would become foundational, granting federal courts broad jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Also debated was the method by which judges could be removed from office. A motion was introduced proposing that judges could be removed by the Executive if both Houses of Congress requested it. This raised immediate concerns about judicial independence. Critics argued that giving such removal power to the Executive would dangerously entangle the judiciary with the political branches. The proposal ultimately failed, with only the Connecticut delegation supporting it. The delegates chose instead to preserve the more rigorous process of impeachment as the mechanism for judicial removal. This decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence, anchoring it in the separation of powers. These discussions on August 27 set enduring boundaries around federal judicial authority and helped define the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has retained high-profile Washington attorney Abbe Lowell to challenge President Donald Trump's attempt to remove her from the central bank. Trump cited alleged mortgage fraud as grounds for her dismissal, claiming she misrepresented two homes as primary residences in 2021. Cook, appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, has denied any wrongdoing and faces no charges. Lowell, who recently launched a law firm to defend public officials targeted by Trump, announced plans to sue, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority to remove a sitting Fed governor. He characterized the removal attempt as politically motivated and baseless. Lowell's current and former clients include Hunter Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and several other prominent figures, both Democratic and Republican. His firm also represents ex-government lawyers who claim they were unlawfully dismissed by the Justice Department. Cook is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board and her removal would mark an unprecedented breach of the central bank's political independence.Fed's Lisa Cook turns to top Washington lawyer Lowell in Trump fight | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a federal injunction that is currently requiring it to continue foreign aid payments, despite an executive order halting such funding. In an emergency filing, the Department of Justice argued that the injunction, originally issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, interferes with the executive branch's authority over foreign policy and budgetary decisions. Trump issued the 90-day pause on foreign aid on January 20, his second inauguration day, and later took steps to dismantle USAID, including sidelining staff and considering its absorption into the State Department.Two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network — challenged the funding freeze, claiming it was illegal. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the injunction should be lifted, the full court declined to stay the order, and Judge Ali rejected another request to do so earlier this week. The administration warned that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, it will have to spend roughly $12 billion before September 30, when the funds expire, thereby undermining its policy goals.Previously, the Supreme Court narrowly declined to pause Ali's order requiring the release of $2 billion in aid. The D.C. Circuit panel later found that only the Government Accountability Office, not private organizations, had standing to challenge the funding freeze.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to halt foreign aid payments | ReutersAnthropic has reached a class-wide settlement with authors who sued the AI company for training its models on over 7 million pirated books downloaded from “shadow libraries” like LibGen. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused Anthropic of copyright infringement and gained momentum after U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status in July 2025—a ruling that Anthropic said put the company under “inordinate pressure” to settle. The potential damages, estimated at up to $900 billion if the infringement was found willful, created what the company described as an existential threat.In court, Anthropic admitted the magnitude of the case made it financially unsustainable to proceed to trial, even if the legal merits were disputed. Alsup repeatedly denied the company's motions to delay or avoid trial, criticizing Anthropic for not disclosing what works it used. While he ruled that training AI on copyrighted works could qualify as fair use, the piracy claims were left for a jury to decide. Anthropic appealed the class certification and sought emergency relief, but ultimately chose to settle.Critics say the settlement underscores how current copyright law's statutory damages—up to $150,000 per willful infringement—can distort outcomes and discourage innovation. The deal is expected to be finalized by September 3. Meanwhile, Anthropic still faces other copyright lawsuits involving song lyrics and Reddit content. Legal experts suggest the company's move was partly motivated by uncertainty over how courts interpret “willful” infringement, especially with a related Supreme Court case on the horizon.Anthropic Settles Major AI Copyright Suit Brought by Authors (3)Content warning: This segment contains references to suicide, self-harm, and the death of a minor. Discretion is advised.The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California state court, alleging that ChatGPT played a direct role in their son's suicide. They claim that over several months, the AI chatbot engaged in extended conversations with Adam, during which it validated his suicidal thoughts, provided instructions on lethal self-harm methods, and even helped draft a suicide note. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of prioritizing profit over user safety, especially with the release of GPT-4o in 2024, which introduced features like memory, emotional mimicry, and persistent interaction that allegedly increased risks to vulnerable users.The Raines argue that OpenAI knew these features could endanger users without strong safeguards, yet proceeded with the product rollout to boost its valuation. They seek monetary damages and a court order mandating stronger user protections, including age verification, blocking of self-harm queries, and psychological risk warnings.OpenAI expressed condolences and noted that safety mechanisms such as directing users to crisis resources are built into ChatGPT, though they acknowledged these measures can falter during prolonged conversations. The company said it is working to improve safeguards, including developing parental controls and exploring in-chat access to licensed professionals.OpenAI, Altman sued over ChatGPT's role in California teen's suicide | ReutersOpenAI Hit With Suit From Family of Teen Who Died by Suicide 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

Fired Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook launches a lawsuit against her dismissal by President Trump which is now set to go all the way to the Supreme Court. France is on the brink of yet another parliamentary quagmire after French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou decides to put his budget cuts toa vote of no-confidence. Opposition lawmakers are vowing to oust Bayrou over the measures. Equities and sovereign debt sell off as a result. And in tariff news, Washington applies an additional 25 per cent levy on India as a result of purchases of discounted Russian oil. Option markets wait on Nvidia earnings, anticipating what could be a 6 per cent share move in either direction as Q2 earnings come to a close. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump's full frontal assault on our nation's financial system by taking steps to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve with flimsy allegations of “mortgage fraud” to gain majority control is in full display. We are on a fast track to the US Supreme Court to define whether unsubstantiated rumors of misconduct are enough to justify the required “for cause” firing of a Fed Reserve Governor who disagrees with Trump on monetary policy. Michael Popok outlines the next fast-track steps for Ms. Cook's counsel in Federal court, and exposes Bill Pulte's role behind the scenes in going after Democratic Black Leaders with scandalous allegations. For 25% off your order, head to https://PeakNatural.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Send us a textJoin Chuck and John as they go back to an episode that originally aired in May of 2021 to review the Ellerth v Burlington case. ---Kimberly Ellerth was 23, fresh out of college and recently married, when she landed a prized marketing job with Burlington Industries in its Chicago office. But eventually her dream job became unbearable, she said, after a boss began making sexual advances toward her.As we continue our HR Stories of Court Cases and Laws that made HR today we look at the second case in 1998 that the US Supreme Court saw in regard to sexual harassment. The case of Ellerth vs Burlington Industries continued the question in the Faragher case….whether a worker has a legitimate sexual harassment case if he or she neither submitted to the boss nor suffered any tangible detriment because they said no.Kimberly was a real person....but she became infamous when her last name was tagged in one of the most famous employment law cases of all time. Listen to this episode of HR Stories Podcast and find out why! Visit TeamAtHRStories.com to see all of our workshops and offerings to help you feel confident in your HR decisions. Support the showOur new book...The Ultimate Guide to HR: Checklists Edition is now AVAILABLE! Go to UltimateGuidetoHR.com to Get HR Right: and Avoid Costly Mistakes. Certified and approved for 3 SHRM Recertification Credits.Join the HR Team of One Community on Facebook or visit TeamAtHRstories.com and sign up for emails so you can be the first to know about new things we have coming up.You can also follow us on Instagram and TikTok at @HRstoriesPodcast Don't forget to rate our podcast, it really helps other people find it!Do you have a situation or topic you'd like the team to discuss? Are you interested in having Chuck or John talk to your team or Emcee your event? You can reach the Team at Email@TeamAtHRStories.com for suggestions and inquiries.The viewpoints expressed by the characters in the stories are not necessarily that of The Team at HR Stories. The stories are shared to present various, real-world scenarios and share how they were handled by policy and, at times, law. Chuck and John are not lawyers and always recommend working with an employment lawyer to address concerns.

Topics:The Courier Fail fails againIn this episode, Trevor (the Iron Fist), Scott (the Velvet Glove), and Joe (the tech guy) return to discuss a wide range of topics from the past week. They kick off by reviewing a significant march in Brisbane, which saw a large turnout despite some media downplay. The conversation shifts to international affairs with a critical look at U.S. and Israeli politics, including President Trump's controversial leadership and Netanyahu's criticism of Australian policies. They also delve into domestic issues such as Australia's response to antisemitism and internal political dynamics. Adding personal anecdotes and reflections, the hosts provide a frank, entertaining, and insightful review of recent events.00:00 Introduction and Episode Kickoff01:05 Technical Difficulties and Banter01:40 Discussion on Brisbane March03:40 Media Coverage and Critique09:19 Political Commentary and Sky News Rant17:00 US Politics and Gerrymandering22:39 Intel and US Government Involvement26:01 Impact of US-China Chip Trade26:30 Australian Media's Focus on US Politics27:09 Language and Education in the Philippines28:55 US Defence Intelligence Shake-Up30:18 Authoritarianism in the US30:52 Pete Hegseth's Controversial Views32:09 A Scathing Description of Trump33:49 Palestine Action and British Democracy35:47 Olive Trees Uprooted in West Bank38:53 Netanyahu's Criticism of Australia49:35 Circumcision Controversies54:20 US Supreme Court and Gay Marriage57:18 Concluding RemarksTo financially support the Podcast you can make:a per-episode donation via Patreon or one-off donation via credit card; orone-off or regular donations via Paypal orif you are into Cryptocurrency you can send Satoshis. We Livestream every Monday night at 7:30 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.auYou can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that in October they will hear a case that could be one of the most significant cases in 20 years on emergency entries into homes. Today, we preview that case and the issues at stake.

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Skye L. Perryman is a lawyer and the President and CEO of Democracy Forward, a non-partisan, national legal organization that promotes democracy and progress through litigation, regulatory engagement, policy education, and research. Over the course of Ms. Perryman's legal career, which has spanned nearly two decades, she has served in litigation roles at two global law firms, as a general counsel and chief legal officer, and in non-profit organizations. Ms. Perryman has represented clients across a broad range of industries, including in the healthcare, financial services, technology, education, consumer products, and non-profit sectors. Ms. Perryman's work has been recognized widely for its positive impact on people and communities. She has received numerous awards and recognitions for her commitment to public service and her professional work, including being named a Harry S. Truman Scholar (2002), a Baylor Line Foundation Outstanding Young Alumni (2018), a four-time Rising Star in Litigation in Washington, DC, one of the Most Influential People Shaping Policy in Washington, among other recognitions. Ms. Perryman is a frequent guest lecturer and keynote speaker on matters at the intersection of law and policy. Her legal briefs have been cited by the US Supreme Court as well as state supreme courts and her work is frequently covered in outlets such as The New York Times, National Public Radio, NBC News, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Teen Vogue, MSNBC, and CNN. As a founding member of the litigation team at Democracy Forward, Ms. Perryman developed and filed cases challenging unlawful activities pursued by the forty-fifth Presidential administration. All told, Democracy Forward brought more than 100 legal actions against the prior administration for abuses of power, stopping harmful policies and improving the lives of millions. Following the events of January 6, 2021, Democracy Forward expanded the scope and reach of its work to address anti-democratic activity across the nation, including countering the work of far-right legal organizations who are seeking to reverse our nation's progress. It has taken more than 700+ actions and works alongside more than 400+ clients and partners, filing cases across a range of issues, including those that advance reproductive health care, protect the freedom to read, defend civil rights, and preserve crucial checks and balances in our system of government. Under Ms. Perryman's leadership, Democracy Forward has emerged as a leader in unmasking Project 2025 - an effort backed by more than 100 far-right organizations to enable a future anti-democratic presidential administration to take swift action to roll back our rights and freedoms, and hurt the American people. Ms. Perryman grew up in Waco, Texas and is a proud product of K-12 public education. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Philosophy magna cum laude from Baylor University where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and a Juris Doctor with honors from the Georgetown University Law Center where she served as an Editor for the American Criminal Law Review and was an Editor in Chief for the ACLR's Annual Survey on White Collar Crime. Perryman serves on the board of the Interfaith Alliance, the Baylor Line Foundation, and the Atlas Performing Arts Center, among other non-profit charitable organizations. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

President Trump has scored yet another YUGE win in the US Supreme Court, with the majority upholding the authority of the Article II Executive elected by the whole of the American people to carry out our political will, to DENY FUNDING that was granted on the basis of deranged DEI and racist ideologies.The SCOTUS opinion includes a SCATCHING rebuke of the unelected, tyrannical, inferior, federal district courts who are in OPEN REBELLION against the US Supreme Court, authored by the clearly and justifiably angry Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, both of whom have clearly had enough of the petulant inferior federal judges who simply refuse to accept any limitation whatever on their self-claimed infinite authority in their efforts to achieve their desired political outcomes.And, of course, in an opinion in which eight justices delivering a bundle of four distinct written opinions and dissent in a concise 14 pages, Justice Ketanji “Waffle House” Jackson is unable to restrain herself from consuming an additional full 18 pages to stomp her foot.Jackson extensively denigrates her colleagues on the SCOTUS bench as ruling in an “unprincipled and unfortunate” manner, delivering a decision that only uses “logic (such as it is)”, is “an even bigger mistake than I realized,” is lacking in “deviates dramatically” from “ordinary, commonsense,” and engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence” in which “there are no fixed rules.” Instead, Justice Waffle House writes in describing this Supreme Court, “we seem to have only two [rules]: that one [that there are no fixed rules], and this Administration always wins.”Contemptible. 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 episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to Uncle Tom Luckey of Humbolt, Tennessee. Today is his funeral at Antioch Baptist Church in Humbolt, not far from the farm on which he grew up and worked his entire life. The time stamps for Uncle Tom comments are as follows: 1) at the beginning, 2) minute 42-43, 3) the one hour mark, 4) and at the very ending few minutes. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 5 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 5: 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 III.A , and stop at his III.B. We'll cover his III.B next time. Part 5. 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.

 Many lawsuits have been brought against the second Trump Administration on the basis of overreach of its authority in trying to enact policies. President Trump declared victory over ‘radical left wing judges' when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the concept of the ‘universal' injunction, wherein one lower federal court can make a ruling which … Read More Read More

OPINION: Three times the US Supreme Court begat a constitutional crisis with judicial review | Aug. 19, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimesSubscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

This Day in Legal History: Starve or SellOn August 15, 1876, the United States Congress passed a coercive measure aimed at forcing the Sioux Nation to relinquish their sacred lands in the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota. Known informally as the "starve or sell" bill, the legislation declared that no further federal appropriations would be made for the Sioux's food or supplies unless they ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. government. This came just two months after the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had defeated General George Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a major blow to U.S. military prestige.The Black Hills had been guaranteed to the Sioux in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which recognized their sovereignty over the area. But when gold was discovered there in 1874 during Custer's expedition, settlers and miners flooded the region, violating the treaty. Rather than remove the intruders, the federal government shifted blame and sought to pressure the Sioux into surrendering the land.The 1876 bill effectively weaponized hunger by conditioning life-sustaining aid on land cession. This tactic ignored treaty obligations and relied on exploiting the Sioux's vulnerability after a harsh winter and military setbacks. Despite resistance from many tribal leaders, the U.S. government eventually secured signatures under extreme duress. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ruled that the Black Hills were taken illegally and ordered compensation—money the Sioux have famously refused, insisting instead on the return of the land.Russian state-sponsored hackers infiltrated the U.S. federal court system and secretly accessed sealed records for years by exploiting stolen user credentials and a vulnerability in an outdated server. The breach, which remained undisclosed until recently, involved the deliberate targeting of sealed documents tied to sensitive matters like espionage, fraud, money laundering, and foreign agents. These records, normally protected by court order, often include details about confidential informants and active investigations. Investigators believe the hackers were backed by the Russian government, though they haven't been officially named in public disclosures.The Department of Justice has confirmed that “special measures” are now being taken to protect individuals potentially exposed in the breach. Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti said that while technical and procedural safeguards are being implemented broadly, the DOJ is focusing particular attention on cases where sensitive information may have been compromised. He did not provide specifics but acknowledged that the situation demands urgent and tailored responses. Judges across the country were reportedly alerted in mid-July that at least eight federal court districts had been affected.This breach follows an earlier major compromise in 2020, also attributed to Russian actors, involving malicious code distributed through SolarWinds software. In response to both incidents, the judiciary has ramped up its cybersecurity efforts, including implementing multifactor authentication and revising policies on how sealed documents are handled. Some courts now require such documents to be filed only in hard copy. However, officials and experts alike have criticized Congress for underfunding judicial cybersecurity infrastructure, leaving it vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated attacks.The situation raises ongoing concerns about the security of national security cases and the exposure of individuals whose cooperation with law enforcement was meant to remain confidential. Lawmakers have requested classified briefings, and President Trump, who is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, acknowledged the breach but downplayed its significance.Russian Hackers Lurked in US Courts for Years, Took Sealed FilesUS taking 'special measures' to protect people possibly exposed in court records hack | ReutersA federal trial in California is testing the legal boundaries of the U.S. military's role in domestic affairs, focusing on President Donald Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles during protests in June. California Governor Gavin Newsom sued Trump, arguing the deployment of 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Testimony revealed that troops, including armed units and combat vehicles, were involved in activities like detaining individuals and supporting immigration raids—actions critics argue cross into law enforcement.The Justice Department defended Trump's actions, asserting that the Constitution permits the president to deploy troops to protect federal property and personnel. They also claimed California lacks the standing to challenge the deployment in civil court, since Posse Comitatus is a criminal statute that can only be enforced through prosecution. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed concern about the lack of clear limits on presidential authority in such matters and questioned whether the logic behind the Justice Department's arguments would allow indefinite military involvement in domestic policing.Military officials testified that decisions in the field—such as setting up perimeters or detaining people—were made under broad interpretations of what constitutes protecting federal interests. The case took on added urgency when, on the trial's final day, Trump ordered 800 more National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C., citing high crime rates, despite statistical declines. The Justice Department has also invoked the president's immunity for official acts under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, further complicating California's legal path.Trial shows fragility of limits on US military's domestic role | ReutersThe U.S. legal sector added jobs for the fifth consecutive month in July, nearing its all-time high of 1.2 million positions set in December 2023, according to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. While this signals positive momentum, long-term growth remains modest; employment is only 1.7% higher than its May 2007 peak, showing how the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic stalled progress. Big law firms, however, have seen major gains: between 1999 and 2021, the top 200 firms nearly doubled their lawyer headcount and saw revenues grow by 172%.Still, the wider legal job market—including paralegals and administrative staff—hasn't kept pace. Technological efficiencies and AI have reduced reliance on support staff, and the lawyer-to-staff ratio has declined steadily. Some general counsels are now using AI tools instead of outside firms for tasks like summarizing cases and compiling data, suggesting further disruption is on the horizon. Meanwhile, superstar lawyers at elite firms now earn upward of $10 million a year, driven by rising billing rates and high-demand corporate work.Broader U.S. job growth lagged in July, with the BLS issuing significant downward revisions for previous months. President Trump responded by firing BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, accusing her without evidence of data manipulation. On the law firm side, Boies Schiller is handling high-profile litigation over Florida's immigration policies, with rates topping $875 an hour for partners. Separately, Eversheds Sutherland reported a 10% jump in global revenue, citing strong performance in its U.S. offices and a new Silicon Valley branch.US legal jobs are rising again, but gains are mixed | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to temporarily block a Mississippi law requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors, while a legal challenge from tech industry group NetChoice moves through the courts. NetChoice, whose members include Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat, argues the law violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the law is likely unconstitutional, he stated that NetChoice hadn't met the high standard necessary to halt enforcement at this early stage.The Mississippi law, passed unanimously by the state legislature, requires platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify age and secure “express consent” from a parent or guardian before allowing minors to create accounts. The state can impose both civil and criminal penalties for violations. NetChoice initially won limited relief in lower court rulings, with a federal judge pausing enforcement against some of its members, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that pause without explanation.Mississippi officials welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to allow the law to remain in effect for now, calling it a chance for “thoughtful consideration” of the legal issues. Meanwhile, NetChoice sees the order as a procedural setback but remains confident about the eventual outcome, citing Kavanaugh's statement. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a state social media age-check law. Similar laws in seven other states have already been blocked by courts. Tech companies, facing increasing scrutiny over their platforms' impact on minors, insist they already provide parental controls and moderation tools.US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.On this day in 1875, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor was born in London to an English mother and a Sierra Leonean father. A composer of striking originality and lyricism, Coleridge-Taylor rose to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, earning acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. Often dubbed the “African Mahler” by American press during his tours of the U.S., he became a symbol of Black excellence in classical music at a time when such recognition was rare. He studied at the Royal College of Music under Charles Villiers Stanford, and by his early twenties, had already composed his most famous work, Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, which became a staple of British choral repertoire.Coleridge-Taylor's music blended Romanticism with rhythmic vitality, often inflected with the spirituals and folk influences he encountered during his visits to the United States. He was deeply inspired by African-American musical traditions and maintained a lifelong interest in promoting racial equality through the arts. His catalogue includes choral works, chamber music, orchestral pieces, and songs—each marked by melodic richness and emotional depth.This week, we close with the fifth and final movement of his 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5—titled "Dance." Composed when he was just 18, the piece captures the youthful exuberance and technical elegance that would characterize his career. Lively, rhythmically playful, and tinged with charm, “Dance” is a fitting celebration of Coleridge-Taylor's enduring legacy and a reminder of the brilliance he achieved in his all-too-brief life.Without further ado, Samuel Coleridge Taylor's 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5 – 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

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

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 NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

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

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

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

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.    

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.