Podcasts about us supreme court

The cases brought the Justices questions about whether these laws violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and whether West Virginia's law violates the federal anti-discrimination statute Title IX. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

We're using the slip opinion this time, see below for a link. Why the Court's majority is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020) (part 10 in a series) about the 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 --This continues to be a real hoot. Part 10: 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 continue discussing and we finish with the Republican dissenting opinion of Justice Alito (joined by Thomas) from his II.D through to the end. Kavanaugh's dissent is next, and then we'll be done with this series. Part 10. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf 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. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

US President Donald Trump has dropped his tariff threat on Greenland, and the FT's Derek Brower explains how Trump has navigated the World Economic Forum in Davos. Plus, EU lawmakers have postponed the ratification of a trade deal with the Mercosur group of South American economies, and US Supreme Court justices appeared sceptical of Donald Trump's efforts to sack Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook.Mentioned in this podcast:Greenland latest: Trump rules out using force but calls for ‘immediate negotiations'Trump's Greenland pivot puts Europe in a bindHoward Lutnick heckled at Davos dinner as Christine Lagarde walks outEU lawmakers vote to delay Mercosur trade pact over legal concernsSupreme Court justices express scepticism over Donald Trump's attempt to sack Fed's Lisa CookBerkshire Hathaway considers selling $7.7bn stake in Kraft HeinzCredit: World Economic Forum, Supreme Court of The United StatesNote: The FT does not use generative AI to voice its podcasts Today's FT News Briefing was hosted and edited by Marc Filippino, and produced by Victoria Craig and Sonja Hutson. Our show was mixed by Kent Militzer. Additional help from Gavin Kallmann. Our executive producer is Topher Forhecz. Cheryl Brumley is the FT's Global Head of Audio. The show's theme music is by Metaphor Music. Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lesley Logan and Brad Crowell unpack the conversation with Pav Lertjitbanjong, founder of Pavness Leadership Lab, and why job security is an illusion for most people. They explore what it really means to build career resilience so you feel less anxious about change and more confident in your options. The conversation also highlights the three key numbers Pav says everyone should know to create stability in uncertain times. If you've been waiting to feel secure before making a move, this episode is a reminder that security is something you build. If you have any questions about this episode or want to get some of the resources we mentioned, head over to LesleyLogan.co/podcast https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/. If you have any comments or questions about the Be It pod shoot us a message at beit@lesleylogan.co mailto:beit@lesleylogan.co. And as always, if you're enjoying the show please share it with someone who you think would enjoy it as well. It is your continued support that will help us continue to help others. Thank you so much! Never miss another show by subscribing at LesleyLogan.co/subscribe https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/#follow-subscribe-free.In this episode you will learn about:Understanding career resilience as knowing your value beyond a job title.How emotional clarity reduces fear during career uncertainty.Understanding the role financial numbers play in personal stability.How strategic debt can support long-term financial stability.Why maintaining client relationships protects income for entrepreneurs.Episode References/Links:Cambodia Retreat Waitlist - https://crowsnestretreats.comAgency Mini - https://prfit.biz/miniContrology Pilates Conference in Poland - https://xxll.co/polandContrology Pilates Conference in Brussels - https://xxll.co/brusselsPOT in London - https://xxll.co/potSpring Training: How To Get Overhead - https://opc.me/eventsPilates Posters - https://opc.me/postersSubmit your wins or questions - https://beitpod.com/questionsLayoff-Proof Your Life Emergency Checklist - https://www.layoffready.com/emergencykitPav Lertjitbanjong's Website - https://www.pavness.comEp. 352: Tess Waresmith - https://beitpod.com/tesswaresmith If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox. https://lovethepodcast.com/BITYSIDEALS! DEALS! DEALS! DEALS! https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/memberships/perks/#equipmentCheck out all our Preferred Vendors & Special Deals from Clair Sparrow, Sensate, Lyfefuel BeeKeeper's Naturals, Sauna Space, HigherDose, AG1 and ToeSox https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/memberships/perks/#equipmentBe in the know with all the workshops at OPC https://workshops.onlinepilatesclasses.com/lp-workshop-waitlistBe It Till You See It Podcast Survey https://pod.lesleylogan.co/be-it-podcasts-surveyBe a part of Lesley's Pilates Mentorship https://lesleylogan.co/elevate/FREE Ditching Busy Webinar https://ditchingbusy.com/Resources:Watch the Be It Till You See It podcast on YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq08HES7xLMvVa3Fy5DR8-gLesley Logan website https://lesleylogan.co/Be It Till You See It Podcast https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/Online Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/Online Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjogqXLnfyhS5VlU4rdzlnQProfitable Pilates https://profitablepilates.com/about/Follow Us on Social Media:Instagram https://www.instagram.com/lesley.logan/The Be It Till You See It Podcast YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq08HES7xLMvVa3Fy5DR8-gFacebook https://www.facebook.com/llogan.pilatesLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/lesley-logan/The OPC YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@OnlinePilatesClasses Episode Transcript:Lesley Logan 0:00  People do need to know that their job security is an illusion, so that they can not only have career resilience, but also just be really aware of that they have a lot more power than they think. And I think sometimes people go, oh, my ability to stay in this job is their decision when it's actually your decision. Lesley Logan 0:18  Welcome to the Be It Till You See It podcast where we talk about taking messy action, knowing that perfect is boring. I'm Lesley Logan, Pilates instructor and fitness business coach. I've trained thousands of people around the world and the number one thing I see stopping people from achieving anything is self-doubt. My friends, action brings clarity and it's the antidote to fear. Each week, my guest will bring bold, executable, intrinsic and targeted steps that you can use to put yourself first and Be It Till You See It. It's a practice, not a perfect. Let's get started. Brad Crowell 1:01  Take it away. Lesley Logan 1:03  Welcome back to the Be It Till You See It interview recap where my co-host in life, Brad, and I are going to dig into the purposeful convo I had with Pav Lertjitbanjong in our last episode. If you haven't yet listened to that interview, feel free to pause us now, go back and listen to that one and then come back and join us. Yeah. Do both. You got time. You can also put it on a 1.5 speed. I mean, we talk fast, but you can still understand us.Brad Crowell 1:26  Yeah. I mean, it's gonna be awesome. It was actually a great, very transparent convo is the right way to say it.Lesley Logan 1:33  I would say so I actually really appreciate, like, having someone be so honest about the transition that they're on. I don't think enough people share that. And so I think that was a beautiful gift for everyone listening. Because otherwise you just listen, people got their shit together, and you're like, oh, they got it all together. And it's like, well, you know, they they have it looks that way, but it's a journey.Brad Crowell 1:53  Yeah. And I think, I think the idea of preparing to step away from a job is always a win, you know, to have it together on the inside. So that's good. Anyway. What is today?Lesley Logan 2:04  Yes, well, today is January 22nd. It's four days until my birthday, everyone. Brad Crowell 2:09  What? Lesley Logan 2:09  Yeah, but that's not what today is. Today is January 22nd 2026 and it's Roe Versus Wade Day. Roe Versus Wade Day is celebrated on January 22nd, the anniversary of the court case that gave women agency over their bodies. And here we go. The US Supreme Court made a ruling that legalized abortion throughout the country, with variations from state to state depending on the length of the pregnancy, no matter what your opinion is on the controversial abortion debat,e should not be fucking controversial, and it does matter what your opinion is. But here we go. Roe Versus Wade Day marked a pivotal turn in US history, the anniversary of landmark court decision celebrated by people everywhere, especially by women. Unfortunately, on Friday, June 24th 2022 the Supreme Court overturned Roe Versus Wade, the landmark piece of legislation that made access to abortion a federal right in the United States. The decision dismantled 50 years of legal protection paved the way for individual states to curtail or outright ban abortion rights. My loves. Brad Crowell 2:59  Which is happening. Lesley Logan 3:01  It's happening. It's happened. People, women are losing their ability to have have babies because they can't get what they need. The biggest thing if you, if you're like, uncomfortable with the word abortion, and I get that because if you were raised religious, you probably were raised and it's like, the worst thing anyone can do. And like all these women regret it. I can't speak for these people. What I can say is, men get to go to every fucking state in the country, and their rights don't change. But if I go to different states, my rights do change. And for the majority of the listeners, you go to a different state, your rights do change. And it's just really pisses me off that we don't have like that we're constantly fighting for equality in this capacity. And what this means is hospitals and doctors in the areas where there is not abortion available will have less experience and less understanding about what to do when a mother needs it. And if you try to tell me, in case of like, the healthcare of the mother, the doctors are so scared and they will have to answer questions. Brad Crowell 3:59  That they're not helping the mother.Lesley Logan 4:01  That they're that they're not so we have to wait till women go septic, yeah, which is the worst you you are lucky if you come back from that a normal person. So it just really pisses me off, because this is not a this should not be a fucking law. This is a health right.Brad Crowell 4:15  So as of November of this year, 2025, 12 states have near abortion bans, or for all intents and purposes, abortion bans in place. Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. Lesley Logan 4:32  Was Idaho on there? Brad Crowell 4:33  Idaho is on there. And addition, North Dakota has a near total ban that was recently revived in the state's Supreme Court, which makes it a felony to perform an abortion, except in limited medical emergency or cases of rape and incest. And that's the problem. The problem is the limited medical emergencies, and that's never clear. And so regardless of whether or not the doctor knows that that's what needs to happen, the hospital is basically saying, don't, don't do it because they're gonna get. Yeah or the doctors themselves are worried about it, because, you know, like, in Texas, they're like, going after doctors. It's nuts.Lesley Logan 5:09  There's okay. So I saw something recently, and I'm hopefully, as I as I say out loud, I'll get it right. So because some states are trying to grab doctors from other states that are helping women access abortion, right? Like some doctors from New York can send medications to people in different states and and allow them to safely, you know, have a decision over their body. And some of these states are trying to, poor women are going to different states, and then, you know, so the state that the woman is from is trying to do something to the doctors or the woman for doing that right in the place where they have a right. And someone explained it like, okay, Nevada has legalized gambling, right? But let's say you're from a state that doesn't have legalized gambling, and you go to Nevada and you gamble, and you win money, right? You gamble. It's proof you did it. That would be like the state you're from arresting you for gambling.Brad Crowell 6:06  So you didn't finish that. So then you go home to whatever state, yes, and they arrest you, yes. But you were in Nevada.Lesley Logan 6:12  Yes, where it's legal. Brad Crowell 6:14  Right. Lesley Logan 6:15  So if that, if you're like, oh, that doesn't make any sense. It's the same fucking thing when it comes to women's and abortions like this is and to be honest, like if you struggle with this, I really need you to do some extra research on what an abortion is, on what the Bible has even said. I need you to understand what, what, what week a baby is even viable on their own. And then I need you to look at how much it costs to be a parent, and you need to understand if you are also not voting for health care for children, for food at all of their schools and all these different things you do not care about life, you don't. If you are not, if you are also not voting for every single thing that makes it illegal to be poor in this country, you do you don't understand what being pro life actually means. And I know that sounds harsh, but that's how I feel. It's how I feel. I used to, used to think, okay, well, they can have a difference of opinion, not anymore, not when women are dying, not when women who are not able to have the babies that they want to have because something went wrong and that affects their ability to have babies in the future. No.Brad Crowell 7:21  Yeah, the laws that that are being passed are, I would argue that the terminology is confusing that I would not say it's fair to call them pro life. They're, in fact, pro birth. So they're, they're not looking out for the mother ever. They're looking out for what could hypothetically be a child someday, maybe. Right?Lesley Logan 7:43  Yeah, that they don't, that they're not going to care for once it's once it's born. Brad Crowell 7:48  Well, that's not necessarily the case but. Lesley Logan 7:50  I'm not talking about the parents. I'm talking about the law. I'm talking about the, the parents, oh, some of these people already have kids and they're like, I have enough. Some of them just are in the wrong time of their life. Some of them don't want to have them. Some of them, you know, it is with someone that they don't want to have a child with. This is all their rights to have. Brad Crowell 8:05  Yeah. I mean, the running joke is that the law cares before you're born, and then once you turn 18 and you can join the military, but between those times, good luck.Lesley Logan 8:15  Yeah, yeah. So anyways, I, I know, I know there's there's there's, I understand if you are someone who has a hard time with this topic, because I do remember being a child and a teenager and a young adult having a problem with this topic. And the more research I did, the more I realized how many, how, how hard it is for a for the woman in this country, specifically, and how, how much, how, in this country, we have women who will die giving birth because we do not do proper medical research, we do not care baby like we have a high mortality rate in this country that we should for a first world country, because of all, and because what I've seen what having a baby does with her body, it is her choice. She should be able to do what she wants, and there isn't judgment negatively around it.Brad Crowell 9:03  Yeah,we have a higher maternal mortality rate than most other high income countries. Whis is mind blowing.Lesley Logan 9:09  And then when you go deeper, when you go deeper, look at how high it is for black women versus white women.Brad Crowell 9:14  Yeah, significantly higher risk for black women and women over 40.Lesley Logan 9:17  And if you are worried, it's because, oh, maybe it's a different No, a high school educated white woman will have more likelihood of surviving over a medically educated black woman because of racism in this country and the stress it does on our bodies. My loves, like I will always, I will fight for women's rights, and one of those rights is having choice over what happens to your body, period, no matter what state you're in and if you don't want babies to be aborted, then you need to go to your congress people make sure that they're taken care of, because I think more women would even have a child if they had help and support. We don't do that here. So on this day, call your congress person, see what they're doing for people who have children and need help.Brad Crowell 10:00  Yeah, yeah. This is a tough this is a tough conversation. I think that. Lesley Logan 10:06  It's hard. Brad Crowell 10:06  Well, it's, what frustrates me is also that this is for 50 years the law was clear, yeah, and then three years ago now, we've got a bunch of Supreme Court justices who are like, just kidding, and they're just taking these kinds of rights away. And that frustrates me more than anything, is that that, that that's even an option. That shit, it was, it was the law of the land, you know. So that's, that's insane to me, and I, I think that the only way that stability gets created is if we are all paying attention to the things that are happening in our state and also in our federal government. But you know, right now, it's up to every single state to protect their women, you know, individually. And so it's important for you to participate in this and be educated and call the people who are making the decisions in your state.Lesley Logan 11:01  And also, it used to be, if you didn't like something for you personally, you just don't do it. So if you don't like abortion, don't get one. Brad Crowell 11:08  Right. Lesley Logan 11:09  But like, like, you know, it's just, it's really hard. It's just it get gets me really. I was just at the I was just at the women's clinic today. I love my women's clinic. If you do live in Las Vegas, the WHASN clinic. Shout out to the WHASNclinic. It is fucking phenomenal. At any rate, they have like, a sign on the wall, which is like, how to prevent pregnancy, right? And sterilization for a woman, or vasectomy for a man, are in are like, not going to have a baby, not going to happen, okay? And then they go through like, okay here are the birth controls. This is how we have to change them. This is how effective they are. So it starts to go from 99.9% to like 97% to 94% here effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. And here's what it said at the bottom of this. And this is like mind blowing that they do not teach people in school because they don't want you to know, because they want you. They want you dumb and pregnant. They if you are not doing anything to prevent pregnancy. So you aren't on a birth control, you don't have any protection going on birth like things like that. He doesn't have anything. You're 85% likely to have a baby if you are, if you have reproductive abilities and you don't, don't do any intervention, the chance of you getting pregnant annually will be 85% not in your lifetime, annually. So don't be shocked when people end up pregnant. People can, they can accidentally take not even accidentally. They could get sick and they need an antibiotic, and it it causes their their birth control to not work, literally, right? I have friends who had IUDs, and their parents got pregnant with them. So like all people can do all the right things and still have this pregnancy happen, and it might not be the right time for them, or it might not be the right thing for them, and they that is their fucking business. Period. I have no judgment towards people who do it or don't do it. It's up to you, but it should be up to you, and the fact that it's not in certain states pisses me off. Anyways, we do need to move on, yeah, but hope, hopefully you're off. I feel like people are fired up with us, but just pass it on to your friend.Brad Crowell 13:09  Yeah. Well, look, let's shift gears here. That's a heavy topic that we're obviously very passionate about. So thanks for following along. Here's what's coming up in our world here. So it's right now, today, January 22nd is the second to last day to get the early bird for joining us this year in Cambodia at a Pilates retreat at Crow's nest, right? So go to crowsnestretreats.com. Tomorrow is the last day to get the early bird. January 23rd is the last day to get the early bird. Go to crowsnestretreats.com or just DM us if you want the link, we'll send it over. Next week is Lesley's birthday, like she already said.Lesley Logan 13:44  I know, I'll be 43 I know, so good. Brad Crowell 13:48  We're just, we're just sharing that. We're probably gonna. Lesley Logan 13:51  No birthday sale. Brad Crowell 13:52  Go out to dinner or something here.Lesley Logan 13:54  Open a party, babe. We're having a party where you dress for the wrong party party.Brad Crowell 13:58  Oh yeah, yeah, we're doing that. That's right. Next month, February, Agency Mini is coming back. We're going to be doing Profitable Pilates is hosting Agency Mini. If you have ever felt like, what's the thing that sets me apart as a Pilates teacher from my my super close friend who's also a Pilates teacher, then you should come to Agency Mini. Lesley Logan 14:16  Yeah. Or if you're frustrated by the studios in town where they are lacking training their own. They're like, they're buying, like, cheap and cheerful $200 reformers and packing people. And you're like, come to Agency Mini because we will with you and also give you what you need to stand out, because that's what we do.Brad Crowell 14:33  Yeah, so go to prfit.biz/mini. Just make a noise over there. Lesley Logan 14:40  Just me making noise. Brad Crowell 14:41  prfit.biz/mini that's profit without the O dot biz. And then in March, we're going to be bopping around Europe and looking forward to that. We're going to be in Poland and then in Brussels. So if you are anywhere near either of those places, go to xxll.co/poland, or xxll.co/brussels. And then in April, we're going to be at POT in London. Lesley Logan 15:05  And by now it has announced. Brad Crowell 15:07  Yeah, it's announced. Tickets are available. So come join us. Come hang out. It's gonna be super fun. Go to xxll.co/pot. And then finally, this is new for those of you who listen every week, thank you for that. May. We are going to be doing spring training again, and this time, we have a really cool topic. We're going to be doing How to Get Overhead.Lesley Logan 15:25  Yeah, we're getting your butts upside down. Brad Crowell 15:27  Get your buns in the air. Lesley Logan 15:28  So if you struggle with overhead exercises, or you feel like it's not in your practice, or you want to be doing them, we're talking like back knives, headstands, control balance, all the ones upside down. Brad Crowell 15:39  Any of those. Lesley Logan 15:40  And you don't have to have to have equipment. We'll have mat classes, we'll have Reformer, we'll have everything. We'll have something for everybody. And if you're on the early bird wait list, for sure, you get a better access options all that good stuff. Brad Crowell 15:49  So go to opc.me/events that's opc.me/events plural, and sign up for the events waitlist. And you know, we'll let you know about the things that happen throughout the year, and then, yeah, so that's what's happening through May. And then this week, we actually had a question from one of our eLevate grads. Her name is Shannon Billings, and she pinged us on IG and she said, hey, I saw those, those posters that you guys made of all the exercises in a grid, and I want to hang them on my wall. Lesley Logan 16:20  Yeah, they're pretty. Brad Crowell 16:21  But I cannot find them. I don't know where I'm supposed to be looking. Where should I where can I find those posters?Lesley Logan 16:26  Yeah, so they're on the OPC site, and the quickest link is just opc.me/posters. And here's the coolest thing about these posters. You guys right now, we're not good at going to the post office, so these are print on demand posters. They're beautiful, so don't let that change. They don't. Doesn't change the quality. Quality is freaking awesome. Yeah, they're great. What it means is, when you, wherever you live in the world, they'll probably print it somewhere near you. So that means shipping to you is actually not astronomical.Brad Crowell 16:50  Yeah, it's pretty reasonable. We've had people order them in Europe or in Australia, and it's, it's not crazy, it's not an arm I'm gonna like to ship. So, yeah, go check that out opc.me/posters, and if you have any questions, just text us at 310-905-5534,Brad Crowell 17:03  Or beitpod.com/questions Brad Crowell 17:04  beitpod.com/questions where you can also leave a win. Lesley Logan 17:10  I just want to add to that, some people are putting two posters per poster frame. So like on one side, it's the mat, and the other side is the reformer or tower. And so if you have not a lot of space, but you want all the posters, order all of them, because you can get frames that have clear stuff on both sides, and you can just like, flip it. Brad Crowell 17:30  Flip it. Yeah. That's clever. Lesley Logan 17:31  I saw a girl who she has my posters, and then she has a different set of posters that are black and white. And so sometimes she wants color, sometimes she wants it to be not. So you can do that. Brad Crowell 17:41  Love that. Lesley Logan 17:42  I know people are so creative, you got to share that stuff.Brad Crowell 17:46  Well, stick around. We'll be right back. We're gonna talk about Pav Lertjitbanjong. Brad Crowell 17:53  All right, welcome back. Let's talk about your conversation with Pav. Pav Lertjitbanjong is the creator of Layoff Ready, the financial resilience program that she built before her work evolved into Pavness Leadership Lab. Lesley Logan 18:08  I love it. So cute. Brad Crowell 18:09  The Pavness Leadership Lab, I love it. She after a divorce that left her financially and emotionally depleted. She spent months avoiding the reality of her situation before finally facing her budget a single day of focus work that revealed nearly a half a million dollars in a forgotten 401(k), pretty crazy. From there, she paid off six figures in debt, rebuilt her stability and retired from corporate life at the age of 43. Today, through the pavness leadership lab, Pav studies how people build courage and make clear decisions under pressure, continuing her mission to empower others, to create long-lasting stability, confidence and options in your lives. Yeah. Lesley Logan 18:47  Yeah. I really enjoyed this conversation, because I think we talk a lot about strengths and knowing what your strengths are. And, you know, we even have a conversation about retirement coming up and things like that. But, like, I think people live in fear of different change, what if I lose my job, what if I lose this. But she's like, okay, so what if we've talked about career resilience and having a career resilience and so allowing yourself to really understand it's better, that it's more than just like, okay, I'm financially ready if I get laid off. It's like, no, like, how can you really understand who you are and what you do, what makes you amazing? So which I really love that she brought up, like, job security is an illusion. It fucking is. And it pisses me off that banks value a W2 when some of us are over here betting on ourselves and every year kicking ass. I'm just saying from personal experience, it's just me. But what don't you think? Brad Crowell 19:32  You're not wrong. It's really annoying. I mean, I don't know how else they would should do it, but like, just historically.Lesley Logan 19:39  Just look at my history. Just look at my taxes last look at what I'm doing. Brad Crowell 19:43  Yeah, there's that.Lesley Logan 19:46  But I but I appreciate that she brought that up. I think we I think people do need to know that their job security is an illusion, so that they can not only have career resilience, but also just be really aware of that they have a lot more power than they think. And I think sometimes people go, oh, my ability to stay in this job is their decision when it's actually your decision. You know, just like an interview, if you want a job, it's your decision, all that stuff. And she also brought up, and I thought this is really cool, the emotional clarity that gives you peace of mind. When you have career resilience, it gives you a lot more clarity. So I think it means, like, less anxiety about, I'm going to lose my job. What am I going to do? Like you just feel a lot better about it, you know? And it's critical, because we are going into a weird world of AI, and I don't even know what that means for a lot of people's jobs, because I teach Pilates, and luckily, right now, AI kind of sucks at doing that.Brad Crowell 20:35  Yeah. I mean, so the conversation that y'all had was more focused on not necessarily walking away from a job that you might currently have, but what if, right, being prepared for worst case scenario? Because who knows, you know, who knows? Like nothing is especially now, things feel very unstable, economically, I think it's more of a feeling than it is a numbers thing. But it doesn't change the fact that it's a feeling still, and people are feeling weird about it.Lesley Logan 21:04  Yeah, and weird feelings have changed economies many times in history. And so, yeah, I also think I just want to bring up.Brad Crowell 21:12  But the point the point is, then that, you know, not necessarily wanting to leave a job, but how do you be prepared for it? And this is the kind of thing that she digs into. Like, she, she talked about layoff being layoff proof.Lesley Logan 21:25  She even has a checklist for you guys, and I think that that is, if that's something you are, like, I want to be layoff proof. Like, I might as well start now. You know, you don't want to start it after. So it's layoff ready.com/emergencykit.Brad Crowell 21:39  Yeah, look, and here's the thing, for those of you who are entrepreneurs like us, you're clearly not laying yourself off. The best thing, the biggest thing you could possibly be doing is conveying to your clients how you are adding value into their life, and not necessarily you are, although inadvertently you are. Pilates is how is your teaching? How? What is it that is benefiting them? How is their life changing? And I'm working on a series right now with our Agency members, where I'm helping walk them through not only how to identify the benefits the changes that they're seeing, but also how to communicate those to their clients without feeling weird about it and not being overly like salesy, because if you can continue to reinforce the why that they initially told you that they were coming and then reminding them about the changes that you're seeing as a teacher in their world, right, it's going to change the way that they value their practice with you. So especially for y'all you know, entrepreneurs out there who laying layoff proof, like, what am I supposed to do for that? I'm not, I'm not firing myself. So how do we make sure that we are maintaining our income? We really have to continue to build relationships with our clients. You have to continue to do that.Lesley Logan 22:59  Yeah, I think that's and we actually have a relationship, like authentic relationship episode coming out soon, like, and they'll be in April. Brad Crowell 23:07  Amazing. I love that. Yeah. Well, one of the things I really dug that she mentioned was she said, how can you really design a life that you wanted to live? It could give you the freedom to walk away, whether that means leaving the job or retiring early. And she said, if you are waiting for security, if you're waiting to feel security, you should be building it, not waiting for it. So whether that is maybe you're learning how to do another skill, or maybe you're learning how to manage money, you know, we've had a bunch of people over the years in the pod about this, like Tess Waresmith is one that comes back to me here and talking about financial stability and literacy, financial literacy. So these are things that you could be learning how to just think through. Lesley Logan 23:51  We have Tess Waresmith coming back. Brad Crowell 23:53  Oh, that's even better. Lesley Logan 23:53  I just oh, it's a great interview, guys. It's gonna be so good. I was just like, girl, I need you to tell me how I'm supposed to do when it's like this, and it's crazy like now, when it feels crazy. I also just want to highlight the don't wait for security created. This is everything this is, this is be it till you see it right here, because I was listening to a phone call conversation in a book club I'm in, and some people were complaining that the situation they're in, they can't create a culture. They have all these other outside things. It's affecting the culture they're creating, and I'm listening to them and like, I get that right? And I was like, I waited a second. I was just like, well, I am in a different studio all the time. Like, I'm in a I don't have a studio, right? And so what do I do? And I'm like, oh, in every space that I go, I own the space that I am, and I create the intention that I want. I create the culture I want them to experience, and I set the stage and I shared that with them. I said, instead of waiting until you can, like, move studios or move this, what if you just acted the culture you want to create in the space right now? Because then, if you do get to change a situation, you'll already have practiced it. It'll be really easy for you to do, or you might not even have to leave. Maybe the culture just changes around you. And so it goes back to like, don't wait to feel secure. Create security. What is the be it till you see it? What does security for you in your job or something else look like? And how can you create it in the space that you're in and wait, instead of waiting for someone to wait for someone to come, put a fence up, you know, you know what I mean, like, you're gonna wait for someone to, like, hand you a lottery tickets you have extra money. Like, what are you gonna do? I think that I like the action step that she's providing here.Brad Crowell 25:29  Yeah, one thing that she was talking about, which might sound a little scary, she actively leveraged debt to to consolidate and then pay off her debt, right? I mean, I've done that too, where I took out a credit card with a balance. I transferred one or two or three credit cards to that one, right? It had something like, if you transfer it in, you get 12 months of, no, you know, no fees, yeah. And so, you know, took those 12 months to pay it down, yeah? So, you know, it just something that seems straightforward, but also might feel you might feel hesitant to get started on that, but you know that stuff's worth, worth thinking through. I think so.Lesley Logan 26:12  I think it's worth talking to people who who understand it too, like a wealth manager or things like that. But like to be honest, that is how the rich get richer, right? Like credit score is, if you're in the States, your credit score is pretty much just like, how do you manage debt? So if you're debt free, and you've always been debt free, and you don't get any cards, you actually don't have a perfect credit score, because you don't have credit for them to like, see how you do. So it is all about strategically leveraging debt to, like, increase that score. You can strategically leverage it to allow you to have the security you need for in case something negative happens in your career or in the journey that you're on.Brad Crowell 26:47  Yeah, well, stick around. We'll be right back. We're gonna cover those Be It Action Items that you had with Pav. Brad Crowell 26:53  Okay, welcome back. Let's talk about those Be It Action Items. What bold, executable, intrinsic or targeted action items can we take away from your convo with Pav Lertjitbanjong.Lesley Logan 27:07  Pav let us know if, after the four attempts, any of us got close on that.Brad Crowell 27:11  She said, Know your numbers, which is so funny, because this is like, I never stopped saying this to our coaching clients. It's so easy to know your numbers, but it seems so hard, right? It seems like this scary black hole of like, oh my God, I don't even know what I need to know. So it just seems like this amorphous, like blob of unknown. And when we dig into the things that most people need to really know is, what are your expenses and what are your income? Those are the things. That's where you want to start, right? What are your expenses and what are your income? Yeah, so she said, for her, it's, she said there's three numbers that truly matter. One is your net worth, right? So she's, she said, assets minus liability. What does that mean? An asset would be, maybe you have a house, right? Liability would be, I have a credit card debt and it has, you know, $10,000 on it. Okay, great. So you have a house that has, you know, or actually, you could say the house is worth $250,000 I still have a loan of $150,000 against the house. So I have equity of $100,000 right? So that's net that's your net worth, right? So that's an easier way to think about that. She also said the second number is something she calls an FU fund, what she describes as that six month cushion that lets you walk away from anything you have to, you know. And today we were talking about it. Maybe it's a little more than six, maybe it's six to nine months, or something like that, where you know, okay, because you know your expenses, and let's just hypothetically say your expenses are 10,000 a month, you know, how do we what's the quickest way that we can get to setting aside $60,000 that's a scary number to be honest. That's a lot, you know, but we got to get started. You have to start sometime, right? And that that kind of buffer will certainly protect you were something bad to happen at an employment situation, and then you feel like, stuck, and you're like, Oh my God, but at least you have a buffer, right? So that's what that that's for. And then finally, she said, your firing number, your fire number, how much money would you need to invest in the market so you can make smaller amount each year on 4% and still have money left to reinvest, right? So what does that mean? That's your like retirement number, right? So for anyone who's who's like financial planner, they'll ask you the question of, all right, how much money do you want to live on a month? Again, let's just say $10,000 and then they'll, what they'll do is they'll work backwards based on your your retirement portfolio, and they're going to assume that you'll be able to live if $10,000 a month is the 4% number, then they'll be able to reverse engineer the number and be like, great. You need to have $2 million or, I think it's more than that, but you'll need to, need to have X amount of dollars in your portfolio so that you can live comfortably on $10,000 a month and never have to worry about it again, because it's in the market, right? So, and the reason that she said 4% is because the average market return is eight, like seven to 8% or maybe even it's eight to nine, I don't remember, but if you can live on half of that, that gives you the other half of what you hypothetically are earning to reinvest back into the market again, right? So that's, that's where the numbers, that's how that kind of breaks down. It's a bit in the weeds. So thanks for following me there.Lesley Logan 30:25  I love that she has those and that you did those ones, because the other one is pretty amazing. And this is simple, but true. Bold doesn't have to be loud, but it has to be true. And so you don't have to have this, like, law, the way I interpret this, like you don't have to make this bold move where you're like, what was that Tom Cruise movie, where he just, like, was like, goodbye, fuck you. I'm out of here. Like, who's coming with me? And like, Renee's. What was that movie? It's the one that everyone quotes, and it's the worst one. Jerry Maguire.Brad Crowell 30:55  Jerry Maguire. Lesley Logan 30:55  Jerry Maguire. Brad Crowell 30:56  Show me the money. Lesley Logan 30:57  Show me the money. And like, but it doesn't have to be like that, but it but, but whatever you do needs to be true to you. And I think that's where a lot of people don't take time, is to, like, really understand, like, what do you want? What do you need, you know, and, and that's scary, because maybe what you want and need is different than what you've been doing, you know, or maybe you've been letting yourself realize, like, how strong you are. And we have a couple great episodes coming up about, like, getting to know yourself and like, also being kind yourself if you haven't lived in that way. But truly, I think that's one of the best be it action items, if you if you can do that, if you could live authentically to you, and you can know your numbers, you are resilient, and you could probably kick some ass. Brad Crowell 31:39  Kicks some ass.Lesley Logan 31:40  Yeah, yeah. So the other thing is, is that Pav has actually been, recently, been doing more coaching in a focused position on the science of making courageous decisions under pressure. And so if you are needing more help with like, making great decisions under pressure, things like that, you can also coach with her. And I think that'll be really if you liked how she sounds and how she coaches and her insight on things. I think that's a really great thing that she's doing. You know, because making courageous decisions are really hard, and also, like, she understands how to, like, take imperfect action, even your nervous system resists. And a lot of people, you know, when you have to make big decisions, sometimes your nervous system does have anxiety. And so of course, it does. Why wouldn't it? It it would be so against what our brain does to go into the fear. So I highly recommend reaching out to her. Brad Crowell 32:25  Awesome. Yeah, that's great. Lesley Logan 32:27  Well, I'm Lesley Logan. Brad Crowell 32:28  And I'm Brad Crowell. Lesley Logan 32:29  Thanks so much for being here, and thanks for listening to our rants. I do happen to know that people like them and someone reach out after our Transgender Day, and they were so glad that they found us. They found our Pilates stuff, and they like our little rants there. So thank you for that. Send this to a friend who needs to hear it, especially one who needs some career resilience or some support, support under making decisions under pressure and until next time, Be It Till You See It. Brad Crowell 32:53  Bye for now. Lesley Logan 32:54  That's all I got for this episode of the Be It Till You See It Podcast. One thing that would help both myself and future listeners is for you to rate the show and leave a review and follow or subscribe for free wherever you listen to your podcast. Also, make sure to introduce yourself over at the Be It Pod on Instagram. I would love to know more about you. Share this episode with whoever you think needs to hear it. Help us and others Be It Till You See It. Have an awesome day. Be It Till You See It is a production of The Bloom Podcast Network. If you want to leave us a message or a question that we might read on another episode, you can text us at +1-310-905-5534 or send a DM on Instagram @BeItPod.Brad Crowell 33:37  It's written, filmed, and recorded by your host, Lesley Logan, and me, Brad Crowell.Lesley Logan 33:42  It is transcribed, produced and edited by the epic team at Disenyo.co.Brad Crowell 33:46  Our theme music is by Ali at Apex Production Music and our branding by designer and artist, Gianfranco Cioffi.Lesley Logan 33:53  Special thanks to Melissa Solomon for creating our visuals.Brad Crowell 33:57  Also to Angelina Herico for adding all of our content to our website. And finally to Meridith Root for keeping us all on point and on time.Transcribed by https://otter.aiSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/be-it-till-you-see-it/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In the second hour, we are joined by Jim Santelle, Host of Amicus: A Law Review and we're talking about the opening statements before The US Supreme Court regarding the president's power to fire federal employees. A former DOGE employee has admitted to using private Social Security information for their own benefit and the latest chapter for a controversial US Attorney. Then we speak with our Sports Guru, Paul Noonan about big news from The Brewers, as well as The Packers. And we wrap it all up with a little piece of advice from Greg, to you and this is for those who seek ads for "discount" weight loss drugs. As always, thank you for listening, texting and calling, we couldn't do this without you! Don't forget to download the free Civic Media app and take us wherever you are in the world! Matenaer On Air is a part of the Civic Media radio network and airs weekday mornings from 9-11 across the state. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! You can also rate us on your podcast distribution center of choice. It goes a long way! Guests: Jim Santelle, Paul Noonan

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' 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 today's podcast:1) President Trump said he would refrain from imposing tariffs on goods from European nations opposing his effort to take possession of Greenland, citing a “framework of a future deal” he said was reached regarding the island. The decision, which Trump announced Wednesday on social media, marks a stark reversal for a president who has repeatedly attempted to coerce Europe over Greenland. It came after a meeting with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Mark Rutte at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Still, Trump did not detail the parameters of the so-called “framework” and it was unclear what the agreement entails, especially since Denmark earlier Wednesday ruled out negotiations over ceding the semi-autonomous island to the US.2) Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said he is ready to commit Russian assets that remain frozen in the US to rebuild Ukrainian regions damaged during the war after a peace treaty is concluded. Putin also said he could give $1 billion from the US-based assets - frozen to punish Putin for his 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine - to President Trump’s proposed Board of Peace. The offer has been discussed with the US, Putin said, and he plans to talk about it more Thursday during a meeting with Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow.3) US Supreme Court justices suggested they are wary of President Trump’s effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over unproven mortgage-fraud allegations, saying the move could upend the Fed’s independence and rattle markets. Hearing arguments in Washington Wednesday, conservative and liberal justices alike sharply questioned US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who urged the court to let Trump oust Cook for the time being while her lawsuit goes forward. Trump’s own appointees were among the skeptics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the president’s position would “weaken if not shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the risk to financial markets was reason for “caution on our part,” though she also suggested she wasn’t ready to fully embrace Cook’s position.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

(January 21, 2026) Amy King and Neil Saavedra join Bill for Handel on the News. California republicans appeal Prop 50 lawsuit to US Supreme Court. Global markets on alert as Europe to suspend approval of US trade deal. More than 10 countries have signed on to President Trump’s ‘Board of Peace,’ sources say. DOJ subpoenas Tim Walz and others in immigration enforcement obstruction probe.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Trump makes a u-turn on tariffs after reaching a framework for a future deal over Greenland. Leanna Byrne asks - what do we know about this deal?We also follow the US Supreme Court hearing involving Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, who denies allegations of misrepresenting her home ownership status. And the EU-Mercosur trade deal faces a legal challenge.(Photo: US President Donald Trump speaking at the annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 21, 2026. Credit: Photo by World Economic Forum/PA Wire)

Administrative Law: When may the President fire members of the Federal Reserve Board? - Argued: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:57:36 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Aides ConvictedOn January 21, 1975, three of Richard Nixon's closest aides—H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney General John Mitchell—were convicted for their roles in the Watergate cover-up. The charges? Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. These convictions weren't just about punishing political wrongdoing; they were the direct legal aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Nixon six months earlier. That decision famously held that executive privilege—long seen as a near-impenetrable shield—does not extend to cover-ups and criminal conduct. The message was as clear as it was historic: even the most powerful figures in government are not beyond the reach of the law.The Watergate trials became a masterclass in the tension between power and accountability. These weren't fringe operatives—they were the President's top men, brought down not by partisan maneuvering but by due process. In convicting them, the courts affirmed a fundamental principle: constitutional protections are not carte blanche for corruption. That principle has since been tested repeatedly, often invoked but rarely with the same clarity.While Nixon himself was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his aides faced real legal consequences. And in doing so, they served as a sobering example of what happens when loyalty to power eclipses loyalty to the law.On January 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—an unprecedented move that could reshape the legal boundaries of central bank independence. Trump is challenging a lower court ruling that barred him from removing Cook while her legal challenge continues. At issue is whether a president can dismiss a Fed governor without due process, despite the Federal Reserve Act's “for cause” removal standard, which lacks clear definition.Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the Fed's board (by President Biden in 2022), argues Trump's push is politically motivated, tied to disagreements over monetary policy. Trump cited past mortgage fraud allegations—which Cook denies—as grounds for her removal, but a district court found those likely insufficient and in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. The D.C. Circuit declined to stay that ruling.The case has major implications: no president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor, and the Court's decision could determine how insulated the central bank remains from political interference. It also arrives amid broader questions about the scope of presidential control over independent agencies—and a criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, which many see as part of the same pressure campaign.By way of brief background, a Federal Reserve governor is a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the central banking authority of the United States. The Board is composed of seven governors, each appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve staggered 14-year terms. These governors play a critical role in shaping U.S. monetary policy, overseeing the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and regulating certain financial institutions. Their primary responsibilities include setting the discount rate, influencing the federal funds rate (the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans), and voting on key decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—the body that manages the nation's money supply and interest rate targets.Importantly, Fed governors are designed to be insulated from political pressure to preserve the central bank's independence. That's why they can only be removed by the president “for cause”—a vague legal standard that has rarely, if ever, been tested. This structural independence is meant to prevent short-term political interests from influencing decisions that have long-term economic consequences, such as controlling inflation, stabilizing employment, or responding to financial crises. While their work often operates behind the scenes, the policies they help shape impact virtually every corner of the U.S. economy—from mortgage rates to job growth to the value of the dollar.US Supreme Court considers Trump's bid to fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersA court-appointed special master has recommended that women suing Johnson & Johnson over claims its talc-based products caused ovarian cancer should be allowed to present expert testimony supporting that link in upcoming trials. Retired Judge Freda Wolfson found that the plaintiffs' experts used reliable methods and cited statistically significant studies connecting genital talc use to ovarian cancer. The recommendation—part of a sprawling litigation involving over 67,500 cases—moves the lawsuits closer to federal trial, possibly later this year.Wolfson also allowed J&J's experts to present rebuttal testimony, but excluded certain plaintiff theories, such as talc migration via inhalation or links to fragrance chemicals and heavy metals. J&J criticized the ruling and plans to challenge it, arguing that the scientific evidence wasn't rigorously vetted.The litigation has dragged on for years, complicated by failed bankruptcy attempts by J&J to shield itself from liability. While the company denies its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer, prior jury verdicts have yielded multi-billion-dollar awards for plaintiffs, though some have been overturned. The case could become a major bellwether for corporate liability and the legal standard for expert scientific evidence in mass torts.Experts can testify about suspected J&J talc products' cancer link, special master recommends | ReutersLindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned prosecutor and former personal attorney to the president, is leaving her post at the U.S. Justice Department after a federal judge sharply rebuked her for continuing to act as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia beyond her legally allowed interim term. Appointed without Senate confirmation, Halligan's authority expired after 120 days, yet she continued using the title—prompting Judge David Novak to call her conduct a “charade” and warn of potential disciplinary action.Halligan had led politically charged investigations targeting Trump adversaries like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, though those cases were dismissed due to questions over her legitimacy. The Justice Department is appealing those rulings, but the controversy has sparked internal tension, with Novak criticizing the DOJ's recent filings as inflammatory and unprofessional.Her departure follows Senate Democrats' refusal to advance her formal nomination, citing the “blue slip” tradition that allows home-state senators to block nominees. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed Democrats for obstructing Halligan's tenure, while Trump allies hinted at retaliation if the court names a replacement. The episode underscores ongoing friction between the judiciary, the Justice Department, and Trump's efforts to assert political control over federal prosecutions.After judge's rebuke, Trump ally Halligan to leave US Justice Department | ReutersA Massachusetts judge has ruled that Kalshi, a New York-based prediction market platform, cannot offer sports betting services in the state without a proper gambling license. The decision comes after Attorney General Andrea Campbell sued Kalshi, arguing that it was illegally offering unlicensed sports wagers to residents, including users as young as 18. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith agreed, stating that state oversight of sports betting protects public health and financial interests.Kalshi, which allows users to bet on outcomes of events like sports, politics, and the economy, claimed that its operations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), due to its status as a registered contract market. The judge rejected that argument, ruling that federal oversight of financial instruments does not override state authority to regulate gambling.Kalshi plans to appeal the injunction, which could be finalized following a hearing. This marks the first court-ordered halt of Kalshi's operations in a state, though it faces similar legal challenges elsewhere. The case underscores growing friction between emerging event-based financial markets and traditional gambling laws.Kalshi cannot operate sports-prediction market in Massachusetts, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

ERISA: Under ERISA, may the actuarial assumptions underlying "withdrawal liability" be computed after the year end, or before the year end? - Argued: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:5:22 EDT

Second Amendment: May Hawaii prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property without the property owner's permission? - Argued: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:2:50 EDT

Monday January 19, 2026 Bayer gets boost as US Supreme Court says it will hear Roundup case

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn January 20, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that began as a minor dispute over an undelivered judicial commission and ended by redefining American constitutional law. The story traces back to the final days of the Adams administration, when outgoing President John Adams rushed to appoint Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. John Marshall, then serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice, sealed the commissions but failed to deliver several of them. One of the would-be judges, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission.The case placed Marshall in a precarious position, as he was being asked to rule on a problem he had helped create. Marshall first held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that the law ordinarily provided a remedy when such rights were violated. He then turned to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall concluded that this provision conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court's original jurisdiction. Rather than ordering Madison to act, Marshall declared that the statute itself was unconstitutional.By denying Marbury his commission while simultaneously asserting the power to strike down an act of Congress, Marshall executed a strategic legal maneuver that avoided a direct confrontation with the executive branch. The Court emerged stronger despite losing the immediate case. In explaining why the Constitution must prevail over conflicting statutes, Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review. That reasoning transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak institution into the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's explicit permission. The case was brought by three licensed concealed-carry holders and a local gun rights group after Hawaii enacted the law in 2023. Under the statute, individuals must have clear verbal or written authorization, including posted signage, before bringing a handgun onto most business premises. A lower federal court initially blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the measure likely complies with the Second Amendment.Hawaii has argued that the law appropriately balances gun rights with property owners' authority to control access to their premises. The challengers contend that the rule effectively prevents lawful gun owners from engaging in everyday activities such as shopping, dining, or buying gas. The challengers are supported by the Trump administration, which claims the law severely burdens the practical exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court declined to review other portions of the law involving bans in sensitive places like beaches and bars.The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the Court's recent expansion of gun rights, particularly its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. That decision also reshaped how courts evaluate gun regulations by focusing on historical analogues rather than modern policy goals.US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Hawaii handgun limits | ReutersA federal judge has allowed Dominion Energy to resume construction on its $11.2 billion offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia, marking another courtroom loss for President Donald Trump's efforts to curb offshore wind development. Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dominion could restart work while it continues to challenge a stop-work order issued by the Interior Department. That order had halted several offshore wind projects based on newly cited, classified national security concerns related to radar interference.Walker found that the government's suspension was overly sweeping as applied to Dominion's project and emphasized that the cited security risks related to turbine operations, not ongoing construction. Earlier in the week, other offshore wind developers had secured similar rulings, allowing their projects to move forward despite the administration's objections. Dominion has already invested close to $9 billion in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which is expected to supply electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes. The company said it would focus on safely resuming construction while continuing to pursue a long-term resolution with federal regulators.The decision underscores the legal and financial stakes for the offshore wind industry, as project delays can threaten multi-billion-dollar investments. At the same time, lawsuits challenging federal actions and the administration's opposition to offshore wind continue to create uncertainty for the sector. Several states, particularly along the East Coast, view offshore wind as critical to meeting growing energy demand and reducing emissions as electricity use increases.US judge allows Dominion offshore wind project to restart, another legal setback for Trump | ReutersFlorida has joined Texas in scaling back the American Bar Association's role in determining which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. In a 5–1 decision, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ABA will no longer serve as the sole accrediting body for Florida bar eligibility, though graduates of ABA-accredited schools will remain eligible. The court said it plans to allow graduates of law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies to take the bar, even though no such agencies currently specialize in law school accreditation.The court framed its decision as an effort to expand access to affordable legal education while protecting academic freedom and nondiscrimination. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis praised the move, criticizing the ABA as overly partisan and arguing it should not control entry into the legal profession. The ABA responded that the ruling reaffirms state authority over licensing and said it would continue to promote the value of national accreditation standards.Florida's decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court of Texas, which recently announced plans to develop its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also reviewing their accreditation rules. These developments come amid escalating conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump's administration, which has taken steps to reduce the organization's influence across multiple areas, including judicial nominations and legal education.Within the ABA, the controversy has prompted internal reforms aimed at reinforcing the independence of its law school accreditation arm. One Florida justice dissented, warning that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA was an unnecessary and risky departure from a system that had functioned well for decades.Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA's law school oversight role | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I argue that the Internal Revenue Service's partnership audit program has effectively been dismantled under the second Trump administration, with specialized auditors fired, pushed out, or leaving altogether. These weren't ordinary revenue agents but highly trained experts who understood the most complex partnership structures and could spot abuse hidden deep inside tiered entities. Once that kind of institutional knowledge walks out the door, it can't simply be rebuilt by restoring funding later. There is no meaningful private-sector substitute for this expertise, and when these specialists leave government, they often stop doing enforcement work entirely.I explain that this collapse isn't just a federal tax problem—it's a looming state budget issue. High-income states that rely heavily on progressive income taxes are especially vulnerable when wealthy taxpayers shift income through opaque pass-through structures. For decades, states have relied on federal audits and enforcement as a backstop, but that dependency has now become a serious liability. I suggest that states step into the vacuum by hiring former IRS partnership specialists and building dedicated partnership audit units within their own revenue departments.With relatively modest investment, states could recover revenue that would otherwise vanish into complex and lightly monitored structures. I also propose a multistate enforcement compact that would allow states to share audit resources, staff, and findings, creating a decentralized alternative to federal enforcement. The core message is that while federal capacity has been allowed to wither, the expertise still exists—and states may be the last institutions capable of preserving it.IRS Partnership Audit Brain Drain Is an Opportunity for States 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

These laws acknowledge reality so female athletes are not competitively, physically, and emotionally harmed by gender-confused males in their sports and private spaces. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

We're back! Happy New Year! On this short & sweet(ish) episode, our exquisite hosts wade into the waters of:  A hop across the pond to talk about stories from Texas and the US Supreme Court. International criticism of the upcoming PATHWAYS clinical trial. Bridget Phillipson's statement that trans people "should not be used as a political punchbag" and why that's a bit f**king rich coming from a Labour cabinet minister. AQA educational materials and their, shall we say, problematic way of addressing gender dysphoria. A not-quite Loser's Corner, concerning Sex Matters and the Charity Commission.  References:  https://whatthetrans.com/ep147 Thumbnail photo credit: Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a wom

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Case v. Montana, which we discussed in Ep. 124. Today we discuss that ruling and what it means for law enforcement.

US equity futures point to a steadier open. Asian markets traded mixed overnight, while European equity opened mixed. Today's focus is on a rotation away from mega-cap technology toward small caps, cyclicals, and defensives, with breadth improving as equal-weight indices outperformed despite headline index weakness. Bank earnings for a second day failed to impress, reinforcing pressure on money-center banks, while ongoing volatility was driven by mixed macro signals, geopolitical uncertainty around Iran and Venezuela, and continued scrutiny of housing affordability and defense spending from the White House. Policy remains a key theme as Fed officials delivered mixed messages on the timing of further easing, data showed resilient consumer demand alongside softer labor-market indicators, and markets continued to wait on a US Supreme Court decision related to tariff authority, alongside renewed attention on recently announced tariffs on advanced semiconductor imports not tied to domestic AI use.Companies Mentioned: Nvidia, Calavo Growers, Coca-Cola

Editors Jimmy Lovaas and Ahmed Namatalla discuss the deadly protests in Iran and a looming potential U.S. attack, plus more on an election in Portugal, the Davos World Economic Forum, Japan restarting a nuclear plant and a US Supreme Court hearing concerning the Federal Reserve.Subscribe to the show: Apple Podcasts, Spotify and many more. These stories and others are also available in our free weekly Forecast newsletter.This episode includes work from Factal editors Ahmed Namatalla, Jess Fino, James Morgan, Vivian Wang and Theresa Seiger. Produced and edited by Jimmy Lovaas. Music courtesy of Andrew Gospe. Have feedback, suggestions or events we've missed? Drop us a note: hello@factal.comWhat's Factal? Created by the founders of Breaking News, Factal alerts companies to global incidents that pose an immediate risk to their people or business operations. We provide trusted verification, precise incident mapping and a collaboration platform for corporate security, travel safety and emergency management teams. If you're a company interested in a trial, please email sales@factal.com. To learn more, visit Factal.com, browse the Factal blog or email us at hello@factal.com.Read the full episode description and transcript on Factal's blog.Copyright © 2026 Factal. All rights reserved.

Carmen LeBerge reflects on this week's oral arguments before the US Supreme Court where some attorneys attempted to argue that their clients, biological boys, who were barred from playing on girls teams, even though they feel they are girls.  Are there moral truths?  How can we make the moral arguments well orally?  Alan and Autumn Ray of The Marriage Team, authors of the "Rick and Jane Learned to be Married" book series, share their own journey of learning to be married, their failures and recoveries.  Have you learned to be married well?   The Reconnect with Carmen and all Faith Radio podcasts are made possible by your support. Give now: Click here

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for January 14, 2026. 0:30 We break down a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could reshape election law nationwide. In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that candidates do have legal standing to challenge allegedly unlawful election rules—marking a sharp departure from how similar cases were dismissed after the 2020 election. We dive into mail-in ballot deadlines, federal election law, and why this ruling reopens the courthouse doors for challenges to election procedures—not election outcomes. The decision restores constitutional balance, exposes past judicial failures, and could have lasting implications for election integrity, voter confidence, and future federal elections. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. The US Supreme Court ruled today that a candidate for public office can sue a state over their election laws. 22 people have signed up to run for an open congressional seat in Georgia. Saks Global, the parent company of some of the largest department stores in America, has filed for bankruptcy. 12:30 We continue our deep dive into the Supreme Court’s recent election law ruling, and it's one of the most consequential decisions of the modern era. The Court’s refusal to hear election challenges in 2020—by repeatedly dismissing cases over “lack of standing”—amounted to a dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility. When no one is allowed to challenge the legality of election laws, the rule of law itself is undermined and public trust in elections erodes. 16:00 We got a question for our American Mamas — Are women judged more harshly than men for the condition of their homes? Terry Netterville and Kimberly Burleson humor, honesty, and real-life examples to explore the double standard many women feel when it comes to cleanliness, motherhood, and domestic expectations. Citing a Good Housekeeping study, the Mamas discuss how identical messes are judged differently depending on whether a man or a woman is assumed to be responsible. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 The left’s intellectual double standard on science and biology is just ridiculous. We break down the tense Senate hearing exchange between Senator Josh Hawley and Dr. Nisha Verma, a board-certified OBGYN. The moment perfectly captures a broader cultural clash: Democrats who claim to “follow the science” but refuse to define basic biological realities when pressed on what it means to be a man or a woman. 27:00 We Dig Deep into a new State Department policy pausing immigrant visa processing from dozens of countries where incoming migrants rely on U.S. welfare programs at unusually high rates. It's an “America First” move and a return to the long-standing principle that immigration should benefit the nation and its citizens, not strain public resources. Despite what the Left says, the policy isn't heartless or racist, it's a return to traditional U.S. immigration policy that prioritizes what is best for America. 32:00 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 We react to reports that Denmark is deploying military reinforcements to Greenland ahead of a high-level White House meeting, but is it political theater or serious deterrence? How could a relatively small military force realistically hope to intimidate the United States? 35:00 A directive sent to CBS News staff during Supreme Court arguments directed them to use the phrase "biological sex at birth" when referring to transgender individuals. That's a Bright Spot compared to the Associated Press' stylebook, which promotes terms like “sex assigned at birth.” The takeaway: accurate language matters, and CBS’s choice signals that factual clarity should outweigh political or cultural pressure in news coverage. 39:30 We discuss news from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has approved a record $9 billion budget for 2026—the largest in the organization’s history. While the foundation is increasing its spending, it is also planning to cut roughly 500 jobs, reducing its workforce by about 20 percent over the next several years. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Federalism: Is NJ Transit an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes? - Argued: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 17:24:45 EDT

Will the United States seize Venezuela's $60B Bitcoin Reserve?  Is it real?Adam Meister (https://www.twitter.com/techbalt)Thomas Hunt ( https://www.twitter.com/madbitcoins)THIS WEEK:  Bitcoin price clings to $90K as traders eye US Supreme Court tariff rulinghttps://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-price-clings-90k-traders-us-supreme-court-tariff-rulingSource: Cointelegraph WALMART TO ACCEPT BITCOIN AT THE CHECKOUTWalmart now enables Bitcoin payments at the checkout via OnePay Cash, tapping 150 MILLION customershttps://twitter.com/coinbureau/status/2007953941167067571?s=46Source: Twitter | Coinbreauhttps://twitter.com/aleabitoreddit/status/2007872395990937749?s=46Venezuela: The $60B+ Bitcoin "Shadow Reserve"https://twitter.com/bitcoin_teddy/status/2007830629480825117?s=46Source: Twitter | Bitcoin_teddyJPMorgan Tokenizes Cash On Ethereum And Redraws Wall Street's Maphttps://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/01/03/jpmorgan-tokenizes-cash-on-ethereum-and-redraws-wall-streets-map/Source: ForbesJUST IN:

This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim ArkOn January 14, 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly establishing the doctrine of birthright citizenship under the Constitution.The case arose after Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens, was denied reentry to the country following a trip abroad. Federal officials argued that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and barred from naturalization, Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.The Court rejected that position, holding that citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by the nationality or immigration status of one's parents. In a 6–2 decision, the Court relied heavily on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.The majority emphasized that the Amendment codified the common-law rule that nearly all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. This interpretation directly limited the government's ability to deny citizenship based on race or ancestry.The decision came at a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. By ruling in Wong Kim Ark's favor, the Court drew a clear constitutional boundary around congressional power over citizenship.The case has since served as the cornerstone for modern citizenship law in the United States. It remains one of the most frequently cited precedents in debates over immigration, nationality, and constitutional identity.The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release one or more decisions as it resumes issuing opinions, while several major cases remain unresolved. Among the most closely watched is a challenge to sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump. The justices typically do not announce in advance which cases they will decide, adding uncertainty to each decision day. The tariffs case, argued in November, raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority and its economic consequences worldwide.Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, framing trade deficits and drug trafficking as national emergencies. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices appeared skeptical that the statute authorized such broad trade measures. Lower courts have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, and his administration is now seeking reversal. The lawsuits were brought by affected businesses and a coalition of states, most led by Democrats. Other pending cases involve voting rights, religious liberty, campaign finance limits, the firing of a Federal Trade Commission official, and the legality of conversion therapy bans. Together, these disputes reflect a Court grappling with the limits of executive power and regulatory authority.Supreme Court set to issue rulings, with Trump tariffs case still pending | ReutersConservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The Court heard lengthy arguments in cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where lower courts had ruled in favor of transgender students challenging the bans. A majority of the justices expressed concern about adopting a nationwide rule amid ongoing debate over whether medical treatments can eliminate sex-based athletic advantages. Conservative members of the Court emphasized fairness and safety in women's sports, while liberal justices largely signaled support for the transgender challengers. The states argued that their laws lawfully classify athletes by biological sex and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Lawyers for the challengers contended that the bans discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of constitutional equal protection and federal education law. The Trump administration defended the state laws, urging the Court to leave policy decisions to legislatures rather than judges. The outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond sports, influencing other restrictions on transgender people in public life. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of Pennsylvania must continue defending against a lawsuit alleging collusion in financial aid practices. The case claims that elite universities worked together to limit competition and give preferential treatment to wealthier applicants. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly rejected the schools' efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, finding enough evidence for the claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs argue that the universities violated federal antitrust law over two decades by breaching promises not to consider applicants' financial circumstances. Several other prominent universities previously settled similar claims for a combined total of nearly $320 million, though the remaining defendants deny any wrongdoing. The lawsuit represents more than 200,000 current and former students seeking substantial damages. The judge pointed to evidence suggesting the schools coordinated financial aid policies to avoid competing against one another. He also concluded that the plaintiffs properly defined a nationwide market for elite private universities and filed their claims within the allowable time frame. The decision clears the way for a jury to determine whether the schools unlawfully inflated the cost of attendance.Cornell, Georgetown, UPenn must face lawsuit over financial aid | ReutersThe British Broadcasting Corporation has moved to dismiss Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit stemming from its editing of a January 6, 2021 speech. The broadcaster argues that a Florida court lacks authority over the case because the program was not broadcast in that state. It also contends Trump cannot show he suffered harm, noting that he was re-elected after the documentary aired. Trump alleges the BBC misleadingly combined excerpts of his speech in a way that implied he encouraged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, while excluding remarks calling for peaceful protest. The lawsuit asserts violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices law and seeks billions of dollars in damages across two claims. The BBC has acknowledged the editing error and apologized but maintains the lawsuit is legally flawed. In court filings, the broadcaster argues Trump failed to plausibly allege “actual malice,” a requirement for defamation claims brought by public officials. The BBC also disputes Trump's claim that the documentary was available to U.S. audiences via streaming platforms. It has asked the court to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending, citing unnecessary expense if the case is thrown out.BBC seeks to have Trump's $10 billion lawsuit dismissed | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in two cases about state bans on boys playing in girls sports and whether these laws violate Title IX prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Civil Rights: Do laws that limit transgender athlete's from participating in women's sports violate Title IX? - Argued: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 13:26:19 EDT

Civil Rights: Do laws that limit transgender athlete's from participating in women's sports violate the Equal Protection Clause? - Argued: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 13:24:56 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Judge Robert W. Archbald ImpeachedOn January 13, 1913, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the U.S. Commerce Court was convicted by the U.S. Senate on articles of impeachment and removed from office, becoming one of the earliest federal judges ousted through this constitutional process. The House had impeached him the prior July on thirteen charges of corruption and misconduct, five of which the Senate upheld. Archbald had used his judicial position to secure favorable deals from railroads and coal companies—entities that regularly appeared before his court. These secretive contracts, executed through intermediaries to obscure his involvement, allowed him to purchase valuable coal lands below market value.One of the more egregious acts involved advising a railroad representative on how to amend legal pleadings to improve their chances of winning in court—a direct violation of judicial ethics. After a twenty-eight-year judicial career, Archbald's fall was swift. His defense largely relied on claims of pure motives, rather than denial of the facts. A senator observed afterward that Archbald was “convicted, not so much of being corrupt, as of lack of plain common sense,” noting his failure to grasp the ethical boundaries expected of judges.The Senate vote was overwhelming, with only five senators dissenting. Every former judge in the Senate, save one, voted to convict. Archbald's conviction marked the first successful impeachment for judicial corruption in U.S. history; earlier impeachments, like that of Judge Pickering in 1804, were rooted in issues like insanity, not unethical conduct. The case prompted calls for reform of the impeachment process itself, with suggestions to create a special judicial conduct court or authorize Senate committees to streamline trials. More broadly, the case had a chilling effect throughout public service, reinforcing ethical standards across all levels of government.Uber is facing a high-stakes sexual assault trial in Phoenix that could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. The case, brought by Oklahoma resident Jaylynn Dean, alleges that Uber failed to protect her from an assault by a driver in 2023. Dean claims Uber has long been aware of sexual assaults committed by drivers but has not taken adequate steps to improve rider safety. This trial marks the first federal bellwether case in a massive consolidation of over 3,000 lawsuits involving similar allegations.Uber maintains that it should not be held liable for criminal actions of independent contractors, arguing its safety features, background checks, and transparency are sufficient. Still, the company faces additional lawsuits in California state court and has been criticized for its historic lack of oversight and a culture focused more on growth than safety.A jury in a previous California case found Uber negligent but ruled that negligence wasn't a direct cause of harm. Uber tried to delay Dean's trial, claiming her attorneys influenced the jury pool with misleading advertisements, but the judge allowed proceedings to continue. The outcome could influence settlement talks, regulatory scrutiny, and investor confidence as Uber continues to defend its safety record.Uber faces sexual assault trial in Arizona that puts its safety record under scrutiny | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two high-profile cases challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender students from participating in female sports teams. While the court previously upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee, that ruling was seen as narrow. The decision to now consider sports-related bans has heightened concerns among transgender rights advocates about broader implications for legal protections.At the heart of these cases is whether such bans violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Legal scholars warn that the court's ruling could shape future policies affecting transgender people beyond athletics—such as bathroom access, military service, and healthcare. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously supported limits on transgender rights, including allowing restrictions on gender markers for passports and banning transgender people from military service.Idaho's law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who has since stopped playing sports, while West Virginia's ban is being challenged by 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been allowed to compete under lower court rulings. The states argue the laws protect fairness in women's sports by preventing perceived competitive advantages. Lower courts have reached opposing conclusions on the legality of the bans, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify whether restrictions based on biological sex or transgender status require heightened scrutiny.The Court may also have to decide whether its 2020 decision protecting transgender workers under Title VII extends to school settings under Title IX. Legal observers say this case could reshape how courts approach not just transgender rights but broader equal protection claims.US Supreme Court's next transgender rights battle could affect more than sports | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Citigroup's appeal in a lawsuit accusing the bank of enabling a major fraud at Mexican oil services company Oceanografía, effectively allowing the case to proceed. More than 30 plaintiffs—including bondholders, shipping firms, and Rabobank—allege that Citigroup's Banamex unit knowingly financed Oceanografía to the tune of $3.3 billion between 2008 and 2014, despite the company's mounting debt and fraudulent practices, including forged Pemex signatures.Oceanografía, which serviced Mexico's state-owned oil giant Pemex, collapsed in 2014 and was later declared bankrupt. Citigroup uncovered $430 million in fraudulent advances and was fined $4.75 million by the SEC in 2018 for inadequate internal controls. Plaintiffs argue Citigroup hid critical information while profiting from interest on the advances.At the center of the legal battle is whether bondholders can sue Citigroup under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for triple damages. Citigroup contended their claims were standard securities fraud allegations not suited for RICO and pointed to conflicting rulings in other federal appeals courts. However, the 11th Circuit found the plaintiffs' claims plausible, noting it defied belief that a sophisticated bank like Citigroup was unaware of the fraud. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves that ruling intact and allows the lawsuit to move forward.US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud | ReutersThis week, my column for Bloomberg looks at an obscure but telling tax provision: the so-called NASCAR tax break.Dozens of tax provisions expired at the end of 2025, and Congress will soon debate whether to revive them. Among these is the motorsports entertainment complex depreciation break, which allows racetrack owners to write off their facilities over just seven years—a timeline far shorter than that allowed for buildings like housing or wastewater plants. Initially enacted in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, the break was a reaction to a Treasury reclassification effort that would have extended depreciation timelines for motorsports. Rather than accepting the change, Congress locked in the favorable treatment to preserve the status quo.Since then, the provision has been extended repeatedly, despite no clear policy rationale or economic justification. Unlike other tax incentives that at least attempt to stimulate broader economic development, the NASCAR break benefits a narrow group of wealthy owners in a lucrative, sponsor-heavy industry. The economic spillover is minimal, and unlike subsidies for sports stadiums—which are themselves of dubious value—this break doesn't even offer the illusion of local benefit.Its survival has more to do with inertia and lobbying than public interest. Letting it remain expired would save money and demonstrate that the tax code isn't permanently rigged in favor of politically connected sectors. More broadly, the column argues for a disciplined framework to evaluate all expiring provisions based on economic efficiency, equity, administrability, and demonstrated value. 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

Matt Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom Alliance Defending FreedomThe post Two US Supreme Court Cases Regarding Men in Women's Sports – Matt Sharp, 1/12/26 (0122) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Federalism: May oil companies remove lawsuits brought for their complicity in global warming to federal court? - Argued: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:38:34 EDT

Tghis episode is about the history of the US Capitol Building, and is part of our #US250 podcast specials.  Jeananne interviews Steve Livengood, Chief Guide & Historian at the US Capitol Historical Society.  We provide great detail on the design, building, rebuilding, and how it operates from its beginnings to this very day. The US Capitol Building is the home of the legislative branch, was once the home of The US Supreme Court and has been the backdrop of some of the most important discussions and debates over issues that have shaped our nation.    As promised, here are some of the links we mention in this podcast: Links Become a Member Individual Membership / Support USCHS | U.S. Capitol Historical Society   Donate to The USCHS DonorPerfect Form   Educational Videos We The People Constitution Program: Video | USCHS   Teacher Resources We The People Constitution Program   Webinars Lectures + Webinars / United States Capitol History | USCHS   There is always more to learn! -JImmy & Jean  

WV Attorney General JB McCuskey discusses the Save Women's Sports Act and the case his office will make defending it at the US Supreme Court. Senator Eric Tarr discusses the lack of direction in the state senate. WV GOP Chair Josh Holestein talks about the decision to close the party's primary elections. Plus, Brad McElhinny stops by with an update at the Capitol ahead of the legislative session. 

Today's episode is about the epic battle between Muhammad Ali and the US government over its attempt to draft him during the Vietnam war and what happened when that fight reached the US Supreme Court. What were Ali's grounds for claiming to be a conscientious objector? How did that argument cut across wider questions of race, religion and power? Why did the Supreme Court change its original decision against Ali to find unanimously in his favour? And who won and who lost as a result? Out now on PPF+: Part two of David's conversation with Robert Saunders about the fight over Irish Home Rule: how close did Britain get to an actual civil war in 1914 before another war intervened? To hear this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening sign up to PPF+ now https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Next time in Politics on Trial: The Gang of Four Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

DISSENT, EXECUTION, AND THE SHADOW OF IMPERIALISM Colleague Professor Gary J. Bass. Judge Radhabinod Pal of India issued a massive 1,200-page dissent, arguing the tribunal was illegitimate and driven by the racism of colonial powers. Pal viewed Japanese actions as defense against Western encroachment and, controversially, questioned evidence of the Nanjing atrocities. Despite dissents from French, Dutch, and Indian judges, the executions proceeded in December 1948, with Tojo chanting "Banzai" (Long live the Emperor) on the gallows. The US Supreme Court refused to intervene, issuing a narrow ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over an international tribunal, allowing the executions to occur despite the judicial discord. NUMBER 71931 TOKYO

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Grains quiet heading into Monday's reports; EU preparing to join South American trade bloc; markets bracing for US Supreme Court tariff decision.

On today's podcast:1) The investigation into the killing of a US citizen by an ICE agent in Minneapolis this week is being complicated by clashes between federal and local officials, with the FBI taking control over the objections of Governor Tim Walz. State authorities questioned whether a federal probe could be trusted, especially given comments by Trump administration officials that seemed to exonerate the officer. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said that after it was invited to participate in the probe of Wednesday’s shooting, federal officials later decided the state wouldn’t get access to evidence or interviews. As tense protests continued for a second day, Walz said he ordered the state National Guard to be “staged and ready” to assist with protecting infrastructure and aiding local law enforcement if needed. 2) The fate of the majority of President Trump’s tariffs is in the hands of the US Supreme Court, which could rule as soon as today on the legality of the sweeping levies. Lower courts ruled in 2025 that the tariffs were issued illegally, but the import taxes remained in place to allow the Trump administration to make its case before the Supreme Court. At a hearing on November 5th, the justices appeared skeptical that Trump had the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs under a 1977 law that gives the president special powers during emergency situations. The tariffs in question include levies of between 10% and 50% on most imports, imposed by Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.3) A band of House Republicans bucked party leaders to join Democrats in passing a measure to restore expired Obamacare subsidies through the end of President Trump’s term, as rising health care costs drive midterm election anxieties. The House voted 230-196 Thursday to send a three-year extension of the expired tax credits to the Senate. Seventeen Republicans supported the measure. The measure is unlikely to overcome Republican opposition in the Senate, but several of the Republican defectors said they hoped a strong showing in the House would increase pressure on the Senate to reach a bipartisan compromise.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If a Prion does not exist what has the goverment been lying about for the past 50 years. I am talking scrapie in sheep, BSE in cattle and CWD in cervids.

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

Trump heads into 2026 the weakest he's ever been– and he put that on full display with his final statements during the holiday break. Brian interviews Ro Khanna and Robert Garcia discuss major updates with the Epstein files and Norm Eisen discusses a surprise Trump loss at the US Supreme Court.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.

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

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

It's been a big year for decisions from the US Supreme Court... and there is more to watch for next year... Managing Editor of SCOTUS Blog, Kelsey Dallas, joins the show to recap some of the biggest cases this year.. and what's to come.

On episode 109 of Native Land Pod, hosts Tiffany Cross, Angela Rye, Andrew Gillum, and Bakari Sellers discuss Jasmine Crockett’s campaign launch, and bring on one of our favorite guests: Elie Mystal. Racial profiling, birthright citizenship, executive power, and campaign finance are all up for judgement by the US Supreme Court. There’s no one better to walk us through SCOTUS’s recent and upcoming decisions than the Justice Correspondent for The Nation, Elie Mystal. Elie on Executive Power: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-ftc-slaughter/ Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (TX 30) is running for senate in Texas in 2026. There’s a lot of chatter out there about her announcement, that she’s a Republican plant, that she can’t win–and it’s true that it’s tough for a Dem to win a senate seat in Texas. Our hosts take a critical look at the media coverage of her announcement and speculate on a possible path to victory. We’ll get to more of your questions this week, including one about legacy media’s complicity in the Trump administration's agenda. A lot of y’all had smoke for Tiffany in the questions this week, we’ll get to those in our MiniPod. Read More about the recent SCOTUS cases– Racial Profiling: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/ Birthright Citizenship: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-barbara/ Campaign Finance: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/ Federal Agency Independence (Executive Power): https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-slaughter-2/ Check out the Council of Negro Women: https://ncnw.org/ And congratulations to A’Ja Wilson for winning TIME’s Athlete of the Year! If you’d like to submit a question, check out our tutorial video: http://www.instagram.com/reel/C5j_oBXLIg0/ and send to @nativelandpod. We are 329 days away from the midterm elections. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media. Thank you to the Native Land Pod team: Angela Rye as host, executive producer, and cofounder of Reasoned Choice Media; Tiffany Cross as host and producer, Andrew Gillum as host and producer, Bakari Sellers as host and producer, and Lauren Hansen as executive producer; LoLo Mychael is our research producer, and Nikolas Harter is our editor and producer. Special thanks to Chris Morrow and Lenard McKelvey, co-founders of Reasoned Choice Media. Theme music created by Daniel Laurent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Minnesota Somali community's scheme centered around the nonprofit Feeding Our Future, siphoned off approximately $250 million in federal taxpayer funds intended to feed children during the COVID-19 pandemic, but were instead used for luxury purchases like mansions and high-end shopping sprees. We were originally told the total fraud could be a billion dollars - new reports out today say it could be now well over 8 billion! In a stunning development, the US Supreme Court agreed to decide the Constitutionality of President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. In September President Trump asked the Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship. Democrat attorneys general sued the Trump Administration to block the birthright citizenship executive order. And the J6 pipe bomber has finally be caught, but something isn't adding up!Guest: Stephen Gardner - Host, The Stephen Gardner ShowSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In August 2022, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall made a guest appearance on a local conservative talk radio show. It was two months after the US Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, and abortion was now illegal in Alabama. And Marshall addressed rumors that he planned to prosecute anyone helping people get abortions out of state.  “If someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state,” Marshall explained to the host, “then that is potentially criminally actionable for us.” This particular threat launched an epic legal battle with implications for some of the most basic American rights: the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to give and receive help. This week on Reveal, reporter Nina Martin spends time with abortion rights groups in Alabama, following how they've adapted to one of the nation's strictest anti-abortion policies—and evolved their definition of help.This is an update of an episode that originally aired in May 2025. Support Reveal's journalism at Revealnews.org/donatenow Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get the scoop on new episodes at Revealnews.org/weekly Instagram Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices