Podcasts about voting rights act

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special daily special, Tarrytown Chowder Tuesday is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the MAGA SCOTUS looks dead set on gutting the Voting Rights Act again, this time with a North Dakota case especially teed up to be issued from the MAGA Shadow Docket.Then, on the rest of the menu, twenty-four states sued the Trump administration to unfreeze more than $6 billion in education grants; the Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change reports on the NASA website as promised; and, for the first time in over seventy-five years, Native American teens were able to kayak the whole length of the Klamath River in celebration of the removal of four decayed dams and the return of long-lost salmon.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where turncoat Daniel Martindale, the US citizen who helped the Kremlin target and kill thousands of Ukrainian troops while he resided in the embattled country, has been granted Russian citizenship as “a sign of respect and a sign of gratitude for what Daniel has done;” and, an Irish tourist who overstayed his visa by three days because he was sick in the hospital, says "nobody is safe” after being held by ICE for over a hundred days in squalid and brutal conditions.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.” -- Ernest Hemingway "A Moveable Feast"Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 13, 2025Apparent Racial Gerrymandering in Tarrant County, TX Draws Condemnation and a VRA Lawsuit.  The County's Reply?  It's OK. It was for Political Reasons.Tarrant County, Texas county commissioners approved a new county redistricting map June 3rd diluting the votes of Black and Hispanic voters, but commissioners claim the gerrymandering was for “political”, not racial reasons.  The map likely eliminates a majority minority district, and has drawn widespread condemnation and a Voting Rights Act lawsuit.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Texas Tribune - (2021) Historically red Tarrant County diversified in the last decade. Now Republicans are trying to divide up its voters of color.Tarrant County - Tarrant County Redistricting 2025Fort Worth Telegram - Are Tarrant's proposed redistricting maps racial gerrymanders? We asked expertsUCLA Voting Rights Project - Tarrant County AnalysisKDFW Fox 4 News - SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting powerU.S. District Court (via Democracy Docket) - Complaint in Jackson v. Tarrant CountyCBS News Texas -  Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting mapKERA - (Update) Tarrant County approves $250K contract with law firm to fight racial gerrymandering lawsuit Groups Taking Action:Common Cause TX,  Lone Star ProjectRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Texas #TarrantCounty #RacialGerrymandering #FairMaps #VRA

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

This week, I'm reading Chapter 23, the final chapter of the Peter David penned movie novelization of the 1991 Rocketeer film.  Ironically, this episode will come out right after the United States' birthday (7/4/1776), at a time when there is a lot of turmoil in the country.  It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I suspect.  I won't get into the wasteland of politics, but since this episode is on the Rocketeer, I thought it would be an interesting time to reflect on how the character fits some American ideals. Speaking of which - ideals ... the country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and all deserve some basic rights.  Was this true in 1776?  Let's be frank (it's an American ideal).  No.  Not even close. It might have been true if you were a free white man but was probably not anywhere close to being true if you were a woman, child, slave, indentured servant, or a race other Caucasian.  It took a long time for other groups to finally catch up.  US women finally achieved the right to vote in national elections in 1920 (19th amendment to the US Constitution).  Though slavery was officially abolished after the US Civil War in 1865, black men were were not granted the right to vote in federal elections until 1870 (the 15th amendment to the US Constitution), and it was not until the 1950s and 60s and beyond that segregation practices were ended (Jim Crow laws ended on a national level in 1964, but in many cases, still exist in other, less overt forms depending on the location).  It was not until 1967 that interracial marriage was allowed on a federal level (see the 1967 US Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia).  Although the United States was founded by immigrants, the Chinese exclusion act, passed in 1882, was the first significant law that restricted the flow of immigrants into the US, targeting Chinese laborers.  While there were amendments to the law in 1943, there were still quotas and other restrictions to abide by.  It was not until 2012 (!) that the Chinese exclusion act was official condemned by Congress.  Although Native Americans were the first people on this land, they were not granted access to US citizenship until 1924 (Indian Citizenship Act), and it was not until 1965 that they were granted the federal right to vote (Voting Rights Act of 1965), though US Native Americans still are often unable to vote for various reasons to this day.  Same sex marriage was not legally allowed on federal level until 2015 (see the US Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v. Hodges). These are just a few examples of inequality in the face of a federal Constitution claiming basic rights for all.  I write all this not to condemn all the ways in which we as a country fail to live up to our ideals but rather to show that as any society, especially one made up by immigrants from all over the world, is going to have its problems and will require a lot of work and constant maintenance to work in any somewhat functional way.  The US is basically a nearly 250 year old hotel with guests constantly coming and going, clogging the sinks and toilets, running down the hot water, making messes, and yelling in the hallway.  Even in low season times, there is still plenty of maintenance to do since things break.  Nothing lasts forever.   How does all this relate to the Rocketeer?  Read more at https://13thhr.wordpress.com/2025/07/07/the-thirteenth-hour-podcast-517-and-like-a-hood-ornament-81-reading-the-conclusion-of-the-rocketeer-movie-novelization-chapter-23/∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞Once Upon a Dream, the second Thirteenth Hour soundtrack, is now out in digital form on services such as Bandcamp, Spotify, and YouTube Music. -Check out the pixelart music videos that are out so far from the album:-->Logan's Sunrise Workout: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7SM1RgsLiM-->Forward: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VgILr1TDc-->Nightsky Stargazing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S0p3jKRTBo-->Aurora's Rainy Day Mix: https://youtu.be/zwqPmypBysk

History lives in the voices of those who lived it.In 1958, a young janitor named James Pruitt helped prevent what could have been a deadly bombing at Birmingham's Temple Beth-El. His story—once untold—is now being preserved thanks to an oral history initiative led by our very own Executive Director, Lukata Mjumbe.This powerful interview, conducted as part of the Alabama African American Civil Rights Heritage Sites Consortium's Evidence of Things Not Seen project, was recently featured in The Washington Post. But this vital work is now under threat—federal cuts have jeopardized the future of our oral history and youth programs, including the exhibit planned to mark the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.Made possible with the support of the 1772 Foundation.The Alabama African American Civil Rights Heritage Sites Consortium “Stayed On Freedom” podcast engages foot soldiers, leaders, scholars and ‘extraordinary ordinary' people who are “stayed on freedom.” We remember to remember how the history and continuing legacy of the Black freedom movement and our Civil Rights Heritage Sites have transformed communities and changed the world!The views and opinions expressed are those of the podcast hosts, guests and participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Alabama African American Civil Rights Heritage Sites Consortium.Donate to the Consortium⁠ ⁠⁠https://aaacrhsc.org/donate/Explore the podcast

US REP JAMIE RASKIN & THE ATTACK ON US DEMOCRACY & ECOLOGY We begin GREEP Zoom #229 with citations for  “The Choreography of War” by our Poet Laureate MIMI GERMAN, whose latest poem is compacted into a brilliant three lines. Green Party Presidential nominee HOWIE HAWKINS discusses the nitty-gritties of Ranked Choice Voting & instant runoff. The great MARIANNE WILLIAMSON gives us a brief hello & a promise to come visit us again soon. Beyond Nuclear's KEVIN KAMPS reminds us about how powerful is the rise of renewables worldwide along with the demise of nuke power. Co-host MIKE HERSH gives us a stellar introduction for US REP JAMIE RASKIN. Rep. Raskin provides a brief excursion into the dire damage being done to our electoral system through the widespread assault on the Voting Rights Act, emphasizing the powerful impact of the No Kings Day marches.. The great RAY MCCLENDON of the Georgia-based Communities United for Justice connects with Rep. Raskin, sharing concerns about the mass disenfranchisement being imposed on the national electorate. In response Rep. Raskin warns of the anti-democracy provisions of the SAVE Act, aiming to keep millions of women from voting. Progressive Democrats of America's great Executive Director ALAN MINSKY emphasizes that Progressive activists are the true patriots. Rep. Raskin argues that the Founders' legacies are being assaulted because of their timeless commitment to democracy. A request for help comes from MAYOR HEIDE LAMPERT of Waldport, Oregon, who proclaims herself to be a Warrior for Democracy in the face of a fascist assault. Howie Hawkins & Kevin Kamps chime in with demands for real democracy & an end to subsidies for nuke power. Agricultural activist legend RUDY ARREDONDO warns of the dismemberment of the US Department of Agriculture & the breaking federal commitments to American farming. Rep. Raskin supports Rudy by underscoring the damage being done by ICE raids to the agricultural workers and the farms that depend on them. Green activist HEIDI VERTHALLER plugs for renewables and asks Jamie if he will run for president, to which Rep. Raskin answers in the affirmative. We hear from DONALD SMITH about a book called UNCHECKED that blames Nancy Pelosi for the failure of the impeachments of Trump. LA's JOHN SEELEY supports rank choice voting, but warns against it in the final NYC election. Frequent commentator NICOLE UNG warns that Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook et. al. are unifying for more nuke power. From MYLA RESON we hear of New York Lieutenant Governor Antonio DelGado, who opposes nuke power. Minnesotan HEDY TRIPP calls in from Malaysia to wonder about the threat to have NY Mayoral candidate Mamdani deported. Engineer STEVE CARUSO warns that the threat to de-naturalize would-be Mayor  Mamdani is being used nationwide. Ohio eco-activist VINA COLLEY illuminates the push for Small Modular Reactors' horrendous waste & Trump's sinister mis-use of radiation victims while slashing their compensation. Phone activist NINA SINGER urges everyone to call their Senators about the Big Bill and the destruction of the Everglades. No Nukes legend KARL GROSSMAN talks about the importance of meeting with a NY Governor candidate who's against nuke power. An emphasis for “boots on the ground comes from HOWIE DUIT. KPFK Board Chair TATANKA BRICCA emphasizes the long history of farmworker activism in CA... and its forever impact.  Frequent GREEPster DONALD SMITH introduces us to the work on nuke waste at Hanford coming from Jerry Politt, who we'll track down…. But in honor of Independence weekend, we will not meet on July 7….so please celebrate & work for at least two more centuries of American democracy.     

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 30, 2025In Puzzling Move, U.S. Supreme Court Orders Additional Arguments in Louisiana Redistricting Case Pitting VRA Against Equal Protections ClauseThe U.S. Supreme Court was expected to announce an opinion June 27th in Louisiana v. Callais, one of the most important voting rights cases of the year. Instead, in a highly unusual move, the court ordered new arguments in the case pitting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:The American Redistricting Project - Callais v. LouisianaAmerican Democracy Minute - Will Louisiana v. Callais Be the Latest Blow Against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by SCOTUS?Brennan Center for Justice - Voting Rights Act Returns to the Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court - LOUISIANA, APPELLANT 24–109 v. PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL. SCOTUS Blog - Supreme Court punts decision on Louisiana's congressional map to next term NPR - Where the Voting Rights Act stands after the Supreme Court punts on a Louisiana caseGroups Taking Action:ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice Register or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #FairMaps #VRA #Louisiana #LouisianaVCallais #USSupremeCourt

Welcome to this educational and explosive, brand-new edition of Light ‘Em Up!Share us with a friend!  We are now being actively downloaded in 131 countries!We continue our intense focus on how the Rule of law and democracy are being endangered.Democracy hangs in the balance and is under constant daily attack — threatened on every front.What better example than the current Department of Justice (DOJ) ordering its civil rights division to halt the majority of its functions, including a freeze on pursuing any:—      new cases—     indictments or—     consent decree settlements.For civil rights this is a crisis!  It has only been 59 years since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. This was a landmark piece of legislation that helped to dismantle many discriminatory barriers and enforce the voting rights of African Americans.  Imagine having that office shut down during the LBJ Administration!  The KKK would have won!In a democracy, the majority can wield immense power, potentially leading to the suppression of dissenting voices and the marginalization of minority groups.You had better begin to ask yourself the tough question:Are you okay with your civil rights being suspended until 2028 and maybe beyond?White people, too, can have their civil rights violated.  Are you ready for that?Will the police be able to simply continue to brutalize people and get away with it as the Louisiana State Police did on May 10th, 2019, with Ronald Greene?Greene was an unarmed 49-year-old black man who, on a dark night in Monroe, Louisiana, 6 members of the LSP “goon squad” tazed, punched, kicked, pepper sprayed, and dragged face down on the concrete, only to place him in a chokehold until he died.Good night and good luck! Under this current Trump administration your civil rights will be “enforced” like his were.We are staring in the face of “soft despotism" or "soft tyranny".This occurs when a powerful, centralized state, while not overtly oppressive, gradually takes over the responsibilities and decision-making of individuals and communities.The state becomes like a benevolent but overbearing parent, providing for citizens' needs and ensuring their well-being, but in doing so, it diminishes their capacity for independent thought and action.  We've arrived there, stop fooling yourself otherwise.We'll discuss and analyze the current push from the ultra-conservative-talk-show host, Ben Shapiro to petition the adjudicated felon Donald Trump to federally pardon Derek Chauvin, the felon, former police officer — who drove his knee into the neck of George Floyd for more than 9 minutes, hastening his death on May 25th, 2020.We have passed the 5-year mark of this deadly encounter on the streets in Minneapolis, MN and tell me, what has changed for the better?Shapiro clearly sees this as an opportunity to continue to support his white, racist agenda as it gins up his base of white nationalist followers.  MAGA-folk and beyond!We ask out loud:Could a president do that?What would it matter, since Chauvin also is in prison on state charges?And we'll wrap things up looking at what happens to democracy when police regularly brutalize its citizens as the “politics of policing” has changed drastically since George Floyd's' death.The truth is under attack!  The truth is worth defending!Tune in for all of the explosive details.Justice comes to those that fight, not those that cry!Without fear or favor we follow the facts and tackle the topics that touch your lives.Follow our sponsors:  Newsly & Feedspot.We want to hear from you!

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 19, 2025Once Again, the North Carolina Legislature Finds Itself in Court for Racial GerrymanderingThe North Carolina legislature once again finds itself in federal court for two racial gerrymandering cases in a trial beginning June 16th.  Voters and three pro-voter groups accuse GOP leaders of violating the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Southern Coalition for Social Justice - Case Summary U.S. District Court - Complaint in NC NAACP v Berger, consolidated into Williams v. HallAmerican Redistricting Project - Williams v. Hall Racial Gerrymandering Case NC Newsline - NC racial gerrymandering trial begins MondayNorth State Journal/AP - North Carolina redistricting trial begins Brennan Center for Justice - (2017) Minority Representation: No Conflict with Fair MapsGroups Taking Action:Common Cause NC, Southern Coalition for Social Justice,  NC State Conference of the NAACPRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #RacialGerrymandering #VotingRightsAct #14thAmendment#FairMaps

Leah Litman, author of Lawless: The Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, argues that originalism masks a partisan project, while critics counter that Roe's reversal doesn't require conspiracy. Her pop culture–infused book uses The Barbie Movie, American Psycho, and Arrested Development to advance critiques of the conservative court. Plus, the NYC mayoral debate crammed nine candidates into two chaotic hours, yielding more zingers than substance. And in the Spiel, rather than accept the usual narrative about the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, a look at actual turnout data post-Shelby County v. Holder—which suggests far less than a real-world calamity. Produced by Corey WaraProduction Coordinator Ashley KhanEmail us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The year 1963 was a landmark one for the civil rights movement – and it's the subject of Peniel Joseph's new book Freedom Season. In the book, the University of Texas at Austin professor argues the events of 1963 ushered in what would become a 50-year consensus on racial justice, including the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and transformations to public institutions. In today's episode, Joseph joins Here & Now's Scott Tong for a conversation about the varied voices of the civil rights era – who didn't always agree – including James Baldwin, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King Jr., and John F. Kennedy.To listen to Book of the Day sponsor-free and support NPR's book coverage, sign up for Book of the Day+ at plus.npr.org/bookofthedayLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Louisiana v. Callais, a case that the Supreme Court heard arguments for in late March. After a federal court ordered Louisiana to fix a Voting Rights Act violation, the new map—drawn to empower Black voters—sparked backlash from non-Black plaintiffs claiming racial gerrymandering. When, if ever, is racial gerrymandering a legitimate remedy? What does this mean for the future of the VRA? We discuss these questions and more in this episode. As always, sources below. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/louisiana-v-callais/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-109https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/335630/20241219161939870_24-109%20Brief-updated.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/339741/20250121131829124_24-109%2024-110%20Brief%20for%20Appellees.pdf

The hosts discuss how desegregation under Brown was hampered in schools by a policy of “all deliberate speed” where the speed was often zero.  In contrast, and despite the fact that in large portions of the nation education is separate and unequal, the Trump administration has begun an “all speed ahead” policy of eliminating decrees which contained desegregation requirements'.   https://www.axios.com/2025/05/02/doj-decades-old-school-desegregation-louisiana   In this episode of Ellis Conversations, co-host Jamil Ellis and his father, retired federal magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis, reflect on the 71st anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education—not just the 1954 decision, but its overlooked 1955 follow-up. They explore the legal and societal impacts of desegregation mandates, the resistance that followed, and how today's rollback of civil rights enforcement—particularly around school desegregation—echoes familiar patterns. With real-life stories, including Ruby Bridges and Prince Edward County's school closures, the conversation traces decades of policy evolution—from Milliken v. Bradley to Roberts Court rulings that undermine systemic remedies for segregation. The episode also offers generational perspectives on optimism, protest, and the need for youth leadership in safeguarding educational equity.

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

This Day in Legal History:  House of Representatives Passes 19th AmendmentOn this day in legal history, May 21, 1919, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. The amendment stated simply: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." After decades of organizing, lobbying, and protest by suffragists—including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul—this marked a major legislative victory in the long fight for women's suffrage.The amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878 but languished for over 40 years before gaining sufficient political traction. The context of World War I played a pivotal role; as women took on new roles in the workforce and public life during the war, their contributions made it politically difficult to deny them voting rights. President Woodrow Wilson, initially lukewarm on the issue, eventually lent his support, which helped sway key votes.Following the House vote on May 21, 1919, the amendment proceeded to the Senate, where it was passed on June 4, 1919. Ratification by the states took just over a year, with Tennessee becoming the decisive 36th state to ratify on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was officially certified on August 26, 1920.This moment was a turning point in constitutional law regarding civil rights and voting equality, setting the stage for later expansions through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and ongoing debates over voter access and gender equality.Twelve U.S. states, led by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Illinois, and Oregon, are challenging President Donald Trump's recently imposed "Liberation Day" tariffs in federal court. The states argue that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs on imports from countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits. They claim the law doesn't authorize tariffs and that a trade deficit does not qualify as a national emergency.The case will be heard by a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade in Manhattan, which also recently heard a similar lawsuit from small businesses. Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the tariffs were harming consumers and small businesses, estimating an extra $3,800 per year in costs for the average family. The Justice Department contends that the states' claims are speculative and that only Congress can challenge a president's national emergency declaration under IEEPA.Trump's tariff program began in February with country-specific measures and escalated to a 10% blanket tariff in April, before being partially rolled back. His administration defends the tariffs as necessary for countering unfair trade practices and reviving U.S. manufacturing. Multiple lawsuits—including ones from California, advocacy groups, businesses, and Native American tribes—are challenging the tariff regime.US states mount court challenge to Trump's tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department is investigating former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, now a leading Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, over Republican allegations that he misled Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic while in office. The inquiry reportedly stems from a referral by a GOP-led House subcommittee, which cited Cuomo's closed-door testimony before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.Cuomo's campaign says it was not notified of the probe and denounced the investigation as politically motivated "lawfare" driven by Trump allies. Critics argue the Justice Department is being used to target political opponents, while Trump and his supporters maintain that prior cases against him were politically biased. Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 following a state attorney general report accusing him of sexual misconduct—which he denies—is the presumed frontrunner in the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary.He is set to face incumbent Eric Adams, now running as an independent after facing and being cleared of federal charges. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed or commented on the Cuomo probe, and his spokesperson insists the former governor testified truthfully and transparently.US Justice Department investigating former New York governor Cuomo, sources say | ReutersA federal judge in Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit by the U.S. Treasury Department that aimed to cancel a labor contract with IRS workers in Covington. Judge Danny Reeves ruled that the Treasury lacked legal standing to bring the suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 73. This marks a legal defeat for the Trump administration's broader attempt to weaken federal employee union rights through an executive order.The administration had filed similar lawsuits in Kentucky and Texas following Trump's directive that claimed two-thirds of federal employees could be excluded from labor protections under national security grounds. In response, the NTEU filed its own legal challenge in Washington, D.C., where Judge Paul Friedman temporarily blocked the order's implementation. However, a federal appeals court later paused that injunction while the Trump administration appeals.This decision in Kentucky slows momentum for the administration's effort to restrict collective bargaining for federal workers, though related cases continue to play out in other jurisdictions. The NTEU was represented by both in-house and private attorneys, while the Justice Department defended the administration's position.Judge Tosses Treasury's Suit to Cancel Federal Worker Contract 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

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

5.15.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Voting Rights Act dealt major blow, SCOTUS hears birthright citizenship case, New reparations bill A federal court just delivered a gut punch to the Voting Rights Act. If you can't sue to protect your vote... who can? Judith Browne Dianis, the Executive Director of the Advancement Project National Office, will be here to discuss this ruling. The Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship... Could kids born on U.S. soil lose their claim to being American? Plus, a new reparations bill hits Capitol Hill. Is real action finally on the table? We honor a true trailblazer--former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman--as the nation reflects on her powerful legacy. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's episode:Trump goes after some commie pop starsGift plane update!The DHS considers a reality show where the contestants are illegal aliens who could win citizenshipDavid Plouffe joins the effort to blame everything on the fake president, Joe Biden, excusing most Democrats and the mediaMoody's lowers the USA's credit ratingChanges on the National Intelligence CouncilLitigation on the Voting Rights Act limits the ability of individuals to bring cases, threatening the lawfare apparatusTrump goes after birthright citizenship ahead of SCOTUS arguments that were focused primarily on national injunctionsThe Supreme Court attempts to protect judicial supremacy and the power of judicial reviewSCOTUS temporarily blocks the admin's ability to deport illegal aliens under the Alien Enemies ActRussia and Ukraine meet, but without Putin or Trump, though it's coming soonThe Regime advertises their puppet candidate in Poland ahead of electionsWho's dealing with who in QatarTrump's middle eastern trip continues in Qatar and UAE where he is again greeted as a kingTrump breaks all the rules of foreign policy and advances the nation's interests in a way no president has.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorLinks, articles, ideas - follow the info stream at t.me/veryreasonableHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Diversify your assets into Bitcoin: https://partner.river.com/reasonableDiversify your assets into precious metals: reasonablegold.comJoin the new information infrastructure - get Starlink: https://www.starlink.com/residential?referral=RC-1975306-67744-74Other ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorDonate btc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableMerch site:https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/https://cancelcouture.comFollow the podcast info stream: t.me/veryreasonableYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A major blow to the Voting Rights Act just landed — this time from a federal appeals panel affecting seven states across the Midwest. In a controversial 2-1 decision, judges from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled private citizens can no longer bring lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — a cornerstone of civil rights litigation against racial discrimination at the polls. Historically, these private lawsuits have accounted for hundreds of critical voting rights victories. The latest ruling stems from a case involving North Dakota's Native American voters, whose representation vanished from the state Senate after GOP-led redistricting. Advocates argue the new map systematically diluted Native voting strength. With the Trump administration pulling back Justice Department enforcement efforts, questions loom: Who exactly will safeguard voters now? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

States consider their own versions of the federal Voting Rights Act, Justice Department attorneys shift their focus from voting rights to voter fraud and state legislatures urge the Supreme Court to reverse its decision legalizing same sex marriage.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine sweeping changes in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration. Reporter Sam Levine joins host Jessica Levinson to discuss how the division, long tasked with enforcing voting rights and other protections, has seen over 70% of its attorneys depart amid a shift in priorities toward the president's agenda. The episode explores what this means for civil rights enforcement, voter protections, and whether former DOJ lawyers can fill the gap by taking their expertise into private practice.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Role and Function of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and Voting Section: The conversation starts with an explanation of what the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice (DOJ) does. It is tasked with enforcing America's civil rights laws—including the Voting Rights Act—and consists of 11 sections dealing with various aspects of civil rights (voting, housing, education, anti-discrimination). Impact of Administrative Changes on DOJ Priorities: A significant theme is how changes in presidential administrations can redirect the focus and priorities of the DOJ and its sections—especially the Voting Section. While career attorneys (not political appointees) do most of the day-to-day work, political appointees set overarching priorities. Normally, shifts happen between administrations, but under the Trump administration, changes were described as “radical departures,” shifting focus to investigate noncitizen voting and prioritizing policies aligned with the president rather than traditional civil rights enforcement.Dismissal of Civil Servants and Dismantling of the Voting Section: The episode highlights the mass removal of senior civil servants in the Voting Section under Trump's administration, replacing experienced managers and ordering the dismissal of all active cases. This unprecedented action is portrayed as a clear signal of political influence overriding apolitical legal work—and is said to undermine the department's ability to fulfill its civil rights mandate.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@srl

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1960On May 6, 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1960 into law, marking a cautious but critical step forward in the long legal battle over voting rights in America. The Act was designed to address the persistent and systemic barriers that prevented African Americans, particularly in the South, from registering to vote—barriers that had proven stubbornly resilient despite the Civil Rights Act of 1957.The 1960 law authorized federal inspection of local voter registration rolls, giving the Department of Justice a tool to challenge discriminatory practices on the ground. It also criminalized interference with court orders regarding school desegregation and established penalties for anyone found obstructing an individual's attempt to register to vote. These measures were modest by today's standards but politically bold in an era where states' rights rhetoric often served as a smokescreen for maintaining Jim Crow.Though limited in scope and enforcement power, the Act signaled growing federal willingness to intervene in what had long been considered local matters. It provided legal infrastructure that civil rights lawyers would use as levers in federal court battles over the next half-decade. More importantly, it laid the legislative foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—two landmark laws that would reshape American democracy.By signing the Act, Eisenhower reaffirmed the federal government's role in protecting constitutional rights, even if the law fell short of what civil rights advocates demanded. It represented progress not through sweeping change, but through incremental legal gains—a strategy that would define much of the civil rights movement's legal approach during the 1960s.In retrospect, May 6, 1960, stands not as the culmination of voting rights reform, but as a necessary mile marker on the road toward more expansive and enforceable civil rights protections.Apple is facing a new class action lawsuit from app developers who allege the company defied a federal court order meant to reduce its App Store control and fees. Filed by developer Pure Sweat Basketball in California federal court, the suit follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers that Apple willfully violated a 2021 injunction issued in the Epic Games case. That injunction allowed developers to guide users to alternative, potentially cheaper payment methods outside of Apple's in-app system.Instead, Apple allegedly imposed a new 27% fee on such external purchases, effectively undermining the injunction and preserving its App Store revenue stream. Pure Sweat claims Apple's actions cost developers “hundreds of millions or even billions” of dollars in excessive commissions. The proposed class could include as many as 100,000 developers.Judge Rogers recently referred Apple and one executive to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt, escalating the stakes. Apple maintains it did not violate the court order and has filed a notice of appeal. The lawsuit argues Apple deliberately ignored the injunction's intent, continuing to block apps—like Pure Sweat's workout video platform—that included outside purchase links.This latest case adds to Apple's growing legal troubles, including other antitrust suits from consumers and government entities over its App Store and smartphone practices.Apple hit with app developer class action after US judge's contempt ruling | ReutersAs reported by Techdirt, Washington is set to become the eighth U.S. state to pass Right to Repair legislation, signaling continued momentum for the consumer-driven movement despite an overall climate of weak enforcement. Two bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: HB 1483, which covers personal electronics and home appliances, and SB 5680, which targets repair access for wheelchairs and mobility devices. Both measures aim to force manufacturers to make spare parts, diagnostic tools, and repair information more accessible to users and independent technicians.Advocates from consumer rights, disability, and environmental groups played a major role in pushing the bills forward. One supporter, Marsha Cutting, shared how her experience with a malfunctioning wheelchair underscored the stakes of the fight—arguing that, with this law in place, she could have fixed her chair instead of waiting months for a replacement.Washington's move highlights the cross-party frustration with corporations that monopolize repairs—especially in sectors like agriculture, where companies like John Deere have drawn scrutiny. Ohio may soon follow suit as the ninth state.Still, as Techdirt notes, many of the states that passed such laws have yet to enforce them meaningfully. In some cases, like New York, the legislation was weakened after passage. Without enforcement teeth, these bills risk being symbolic victories. And with mounting political and fiscal pressure during Trump's second term, there's concern that ambitious consumer protections could quietly fall off the legislative agenda.Washington The Eighth State To Pass ‘Right To Repair' Law | TechdirtMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week looks at the resurgence of Republican-backed proposals for a so-called “millionaire tax” and argues that, far from being a step toward fairness, these marginal rate hikes risk cementing the very inequities they claim to address. I contend that celebrating superficial tweaks to the top marginal tax rate—while leaving the broader tax base untouched—burns valuable political momentum and can make real structural reform less likely in the future.The problem isn't just that the ultrawealthy pay too little tax—it's that we're taxing the wrong things in the wrong ways. A new bracket on reported income doesn't reach the vast majority of economic income for the ultrawealthy, which comes from unrealized gains, pass-through structures, and other vehicles that avoid ordinary income classification. A serious reform agenda would prioritize taxing that hidden wealth: ending stepped-up basis, closing the carried interest loophole, and addressing partnership opacity.Superficial changes like a new tax bracket can create the illusion of progress while leaving the architecture of tax avoidance intact. Worse, these symbolic victories often sap the will for deeper, more consequential change. Once lawmakers can declare they've “done something,” it becomes harder to make the case that more action is needed. As I argue in the piece, this is how inequality persists—not just through resistance, but through the misdirection of well-intentioned but shallow reform. 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

Trump as payback for his father and him being investigated by the civil rights division of the DOJ has moved to shutter the once proud crown jewel division that was responsible for enforcing the Fair Housing Act, Voting Rights Act, anti-discrimination and harassment laws, investigate and sue over hate crimes, including church and synagogue attacks. Now, under Trump, the division lost 70 percent of its lawyers and has now been reduced to going after transgender people, searching for nonexistent voter fraud, and white people discrimination. On this Law Day, celebrating the rule of law, Michael Popok reports on what's happened and who is responsible. Let Rocket Money reach your financial goals faster by going to https://rocketmoney.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since American president Donald Trump was elected to a second term, it is common to hear citizens, journalists, and public officials distinguish between the laws and leaders of their states and the national government. Those who oppose Trump's policies with regard to reproductive rights, gun violence, LGBTQ+, education, police, and voting often present state constitutions, courts, laws, culture, and leaders as a bulwark against Trump's autocratic rule.  But Professor Stephen H. Legomsky sees it differently. His new book, Reimagining the American Union: The Case for Abolishing State Government (Cambridge University Press 2025) argues that – if we care about democracy – we should imagine an America without state government. No longer a union of arbitrarily constructed states, the country would become a union of one American people. Reimagining the American Union understands state government as the root cause of the gravest threats to American democracy. While some of those threats are baked into the Constitution, the book argues that others are the product of state legislatures abusing their powers through gerrymanders, voter suppression, and other less-publicized manipulations that often target African-Americans and other minority voters. Reimagining the American Union interrogates how having national, state and local legislative bodies, taxation, bureaucracy, and regulation wastes taxpayer money and burdens the citizenry. After assessing the supposed benefits of state government, Professor Legomsky argues for a new, unitary American republic with only national and local governments. Stephen H. Legomsky is the John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Law. Professor Legomsky has published scholarly books on immigration and refugee law, courts, and constitutional law. He served in the Obama Administration as Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later as Senior Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. He was a member of President-Elect Biden's transition team, has testified often before Congress, and has worked with state, local, UN, and foreign governments. Mentioned: Cambridge University press is offering a 20% discount here (until October) Susan's NBN interview with Richard Kreitner on Break It Up: Secession, Division, and The Secret History of America's Imperfect Union Jonathan A. Rodden's Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide (Basic Books 2019) Hendrik Hertzberg's review of Robert A. Dahl's How Democratic Is the American Constitution (Yale) Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court case that overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965's pre-clearance requirement for historically discriminating districts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Since American president Donald Trump was elected to a second term, it is common to hear citizens, journalists, and public officials distinguish between the laws and leaders of their states and the national government. Those who oppose Trump's policies with regard to reproductive rights, gun violence, LGBTQ+, education, police, and voting often present state constitutions, courts, laws, culture, and leaders as a bulwark against Trump's autocratic rule.  But Professor Stephen H. Legomsky sees it differently. His new book, Reimagining the American Union: The Case for Abolishing State Government (Cambridge University Press 2025) argues that – if we care about democracy – we should imagine an America without state government. No longer a union of arbitrarily constructed states, the country would become a union of one American people. Reimagining the American Union understands state government as the root cause of the gravest threats to American democracy. While some of those threats are baked into the Constitution, the book argues that others are the product of state legislatures abusing their powers through gerrymanders, voter suppression, and other less-publicized manipulations that often target African-Americans and other minority voters. Reimagining the American Union interrogates how having national, state and local legislative bodies, taxation, bureaucracy, and regulation wastes taxpayer money and burdens the citizenry. After assessing the supposed benefits of state government, Professor Legomsky argues for a new, unitary American republic with only national and local governments. Stephen H. Legomsky is the John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Law. Professor Legomsky has published scholarly books on immigration and refugee law, courts, and constitutional law. He served in the Obama Administration as Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later as Senior Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. He was a member of President-Elect Biden's transition team, has testified often before Congress, and has worked with state, local, UN, and foreign governments. Mentioned: Cambridge University press is offering a 20% discount here (until October) Susan's NBN interview with Richard Kreitner on Break It Up: Secession, Division, and The Secret History of America's Imperfect Union Jonathan A. Rodden's Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide (Basic Books 2019) Hendrik Hertzberg's review of Robert A. Dahl's How Democratic Is the American Constitution (Yale) Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court case that overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965's pre-clearance requirement for historically discriminating districts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Since American president Donald Trump was elected to a second term, it is common to hear citizens, journalists, and public officials distinguish between the laws and leaders of their states and the national government. Those who oppose Trump's policies with regard to reproductive rights, gun violence, LGBTQ+, education, police, and voting often present state constitutions, courts, laws, culture, and leaders as a bulwark against Trump's autocratic rule.  But Professor Stephen H. Legomsky sees it differently. His new book, Reimagining the American Union: The Case for Abolishing State Government (Cambridge University Press 2025) argues that – if we care about democracy – we should imagine an America without state government. No longer a union of arbitrarily constructed states, the country would become a union of one American people. Reimagining the American Union understands state government as the root cause of the gravest threats to American democracy. While some of those threats are baked into the Constitution, the book argues that others are the product of state legislatures abusing their powers through gerrymanders, voter suppression, and other less-publicized manipulations that often target African-Americans and other minority voters. Reimagining the American Union interrogates how having national, state and local legislative bodies, taxation, bureaucracy, and regulation wastes taxpayer money and burdens the citizenry. After assessing the supposed benefits of state government, Professor Legomsky argues for a new, unitary American republic with only national and local governments. Stephen H. Legomsky is the John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Law. Professor Legomsky has published scholarly books on immigration and refugee law, courts, and constitutional law. He served in the Obama Administration as Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later as Senior Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. He was a member of President-Elect Biden's transition team, has testified often before Congress, and has worked with state, local, UN, and foreign governments. Mentioned: Cambridge University press is offering a 20% discount here (until October) Susan's NBN interview with Richard Kreitner on Break It Up: Secession, Division, and The Secret History of America's Imperfect Union Jonathan A. Rodden's Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide (Basic Books 2019) Hendrik Hertzberg's review of Robert A. Dahl's How Democratic Is the American Constitution (Yale) Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court case that overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965's pre-clearance requirement for historically discriminating districts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Since American president Donald Trump was elected to a second term, it is common to hear citizens, journalists, and public officials distinguish between the laws and leaders of their states and the national government. Those who oppose Trump's policies with regard to reproductive rights, gun violence, LGBTQ+, education, police, and voting often present state constitutions, courts, laws, culture, and leaders as a bulwark against Trump's autocratic rule.  But Professor Stephen H. Legomsky sees it differently. His new book, Reimagining the American Union: The Case for Abolishing State Government (Cambridge University Press 2025) argues that – if we care about democracy – we should imagine an America without state government. No longer a union of arbitrarily constructed states, the country would become a union of one American people. Reimagining the American Union understands state government as the root cause of the gravest threats to American democracy. While some of those threats are baked into the Constitution, the book argues that others are the product of state legislatures abusing their powers through gerrymanders, voter suppression, and other less-publicized manipulations that often target African-Americans and other minority voters. Reimagining the American Union interrogates how having national, state and local legislative bodies, taxation, bureaucracy, and regulation wastes taxpayer money and burdens the citizenry. After assessing the supposed benefits of state government, Professor Legomsky argues for a new, unitary American republic with only national and local governments. Stephen H. Legomsky is the John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Law. Professor Legomsky has published scholarly books on immigration and refugee law, courts, and constitutional law. He served in the Obama Administration as Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later as Senior Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. He was a member of President-Elect Biden's transition team, has testified often before Congress, and has worked with state, local, UN, and foreign governments. Mentioned: Cambridge University press is offering a 20% discount here (until October) Susan's NBN interview with Richard Kreitner on Break It Up: Secession, Division, and The Secret History of America's Imperfect Union Jonathan A. Rodden's Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide (Basic Books 2019) Hendrik Hertzberg's review of Robert A. Dahl's How Democratic Is the American Constitution (Yale) Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court case that overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965's pre-clearance requirement for historically discriminating districts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Since American president Donald Trump was elected to a second term, it is common to hear citizens, journalists, and public officials distinguish between the laws and leaders of their states and the national government. Those who oppose Trump's policies with regard to reproductive rights, gun violence, LGBTQ+, education, police, and voting often present state constitutions, courts, laws, culture, and leaders as a bulwark against Trump's autocratic rule.  But Professor Stephen H. Legomsky sees it differently. His new book, Reimagining the American Union: The Case for Abolishing State Government (Cambridge University Press 2025) argues that – if we care about democracy – we should imagine an America without state government. No longer a union of arbitrarily constructed states, the country would become a union of one American people. Reimagining the American Union understands state government as the root cause of the gravest threats to American democracy. While some of those threats are baked into the Constitution, the book argues that others are the product of state legislatures abusing their powers through gerrymanders, voter suppression, and other less-publicized manipulations that often target African-Americans and other minority voters. Reimagining the American Union interrogates how having national, state and local legislative bodies, taxation, bureaucracy, and regulation wastes taxpayer money and burdens the citizenry. After assessing the supposed benefits of state government, Professor Legomsky argues for a new, unitary American republic with only national and local governments. Stephen H. Legomsky is the John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Law. Professor Legomsky has published scholarly books on immigration and refugee law, courts, and constitutional law. He served in the Obama Administration as Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later as Senior Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. He was a member of President-Elect Biden's transition team, has testified often before Congress, and has worked with state, local, UN, and foreign governments. Mentioned: Cambridge University press is offering a 20% discount here (until October) Susan's NBN interview with Richard Kreitner on Break It Up: Secession, Division, and The Secret History of America's Imperfect Union Jonathan A. Rodden's Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide (Basic Books 2019) Hendrik Hertzberg's review of Robert A. Dahl's How Democratic Is the American Constitution (Yale) Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court case that overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965's pre-clearance requirement for historically discriminating districts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

When it comes to Confederate monuments, there is no common ground. Polarizing debates over their meaning have intensified into legislative maneuvering to preserve the statues, legal battles to remove them, and rowdy crowds taking matters into their own hands. These conflicts have raged for well over a century—but they've never been as intense as they are today. In No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice (UNC Press, 2021), Dr. Karen L. Cox offers an eye-opening narrative of the efforts to raise, preserve, protest, and remove Confederate monuments. Dr. Cox depicts what these statues meant to those who erected them and how a movement arose to force a reckoning. She shows the forces that drove white southerners to construct beacons of white supremacy, as well as the ways that anti-monument sentiment, largely stifled during the Jim Crow era, returned with the civil rights movement and gathered momentum in the decades after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Monument defenders responded with gerrymandering and "heritage" laws intended to block efforts to remove these statues, but hard as they worked to preserve the Lost Cause vision of southern history, civil rights activists, Black elected officials, and movements of ordinary people fought harder to take the story back. Timely, accessible, and essential, No Common Ground is the story of the seemingly invincible stone sentinels that are just beginning to fall from their pedestals. Our guest is: Dr. Karen L. Cox, who is professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her other books include Dreaming of Dixie: How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture and Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Campus Monuments Researching Racial Injustice A Conversation with Curators from the Smithsonian The Names of All the Flowers What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions Stolen Fragments Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can help support the show by downloading, assigning and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

When it comes to Confederate monuments, there is no common ground. Polarizing debates over their meaning have intensified into legislative maneuvering to preserve the statues, legal battles to remove them, and rowdy crowds taking matters into their own hands. These conflicts have raged for well over a century—but they've never been as intense as they are today. In No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice (UNC Press, 2021), Dr. Karen L. Cox offers an eye-opening narrative of the efforts to raise, preserve, protest, and remove Confederate monuments. Dr. Cox depicts what these statues meant to those who erected them and how a movement arose to force a reckoning. She shows the forces that drove white southerners to construct beacons of white supremacy, as well as the ways that anti-monument sentiment, largely stifled during the Jim Crow era, returned with the civil rights movement and gathered momentum in the decades after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Monument defenders responded with gerrymandering and "heritage" laws intended to block efforts to remove these statues, but hard as they worked to preserve the Lost Cause vision of southern history, civil rights activists, Black elected officials, and movements of ordinary people fought harder to take the story back. Timely, accessible, and essential, No Common Ground is the story of the seemingly invincible stone sentinels that are just beginning to fall from their pedestals. Our guest is: Dr. Karen L. Cox, who is professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her other books include Dreaming of Dixie: How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture and Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Campus Monuments Researching Racial Injustice A Conversation with Curators from the Smithsonian The Names of All the Flowers What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions Stolen Fragments Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can help support the show by downloading, assigning and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

This week on Ring of Fire! Donald Trump was humiliated on the global stage this past weekend for both his behavior at Pope Francis' funeral, as well as his policies that were attacked during the Homily. Trump was called out for breaking the dress code by wearing a blue suit, for chewing gum during the service, and for playing on his phone. But the real attack came during the Homily, when the world was reminded that the Pope always encouraged people to “build bridges, not walls,” which was a direct line of attack to Trump's “build the wall” pledge. The Trump administration has hit a new level of lawlessness after they proudly announced that they had arrested a judge in Wisconsin for allegedly obstructing the arrest of an undocumented person. The man was appearing in court for domestic battery charges. The administration sent plainclothes officers to arrest him, and when the judge confronted the agents and told them that they didn't have the proper warrant, she directed the defendant and his lawyer to a separate area of the courthouse. The Trump administration has taken the unprecedented move of dismissing ALL of the voting rights cases that the DOJ was actively pursuing against cities, states, or municipalities that may have violated sections of the Voting Rights Act and violated people's rights in the process. They then took things a step further by firing all of the investigators in the voting rights division of the DOJ. This gives states a green light to suppress and violate voting rights across the country. All that, and much more, on this week's Ring of Fire Podcast!

When it comes to Confederate monuments, there is no common ground. Polarizing debates over their meaning have intensified into legislative maneuvering to preserve the statues, legal battles to remove them, and rowdy crowds taking matters into their own hands. These conflicts have raged for well over a century—but they've never been as intense as they are today. In No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice (UNC Press, 2021), Dr. Karen L. Cox offers an eye-opening narrative of the efforts to raise, preserve, protest, and remove Confederate monuments. Dr. Cox depicts what these statues meant to those who erected them and how a movement arose to force a reckoning. She shows the forces that drove white southerners to construct beacons of white supremacy, as well as the ways that anti-monument sentiment, largely stifled during the Jim Crow era, returned with the civil rights movement and gathered momentum in the decades after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Monument defenders responded with gerrymandering and "heritage" laws intended to block efforts to remove these statues, but hard as they worked to preserve the Lost Cause vision of southern history, civil rights activists, Black elected officials, and movements of ordinary people fought harder to take the story back. Timely, accessible, and essential, No Common Ground is the story of the seemingly invincible stone sentinels that are just beginning to fall from their pedestals. Our guest is: Dr. Karen L. Cox, who is professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her other books include Dreaming of Dixie: How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture and Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Campus Monuments Researching Racial Injustice A Conversation with Curators from the Smithsonian The Names of All the Flowers What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions Stolen Fragments Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can help support the show by downloading, assigning and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

When it comes to Confederate monuments, there is no common ground. Polarizing debates over their meaning have intensified into legislative maneuvering to preserve the statues, legal battles to remove them, and rowdy crowds taking matters into their own hands. These conflicts have raged for well over a century—but they've never been as intense as they are today. In No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice (UNC Press, 2021), Dr. Karen L. Cox offers an eye-opening narrative of the efforts to raise, preserve, protest, and remove Confederate monuments. Dr. Cox depicts what these statues meant to those who erected them and how a movement arose to force a reckoning. She shows the forces that drove white southerners to construct beacons of white supremacy, as well as the ways that anti-monument sentiment, largely stifled during the Jim Crow era, returned with the civil rights movement and gathered momentum in the decades after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Monument defenders responded with gerrymandering and "heritage" laws intended to block efforts to remove these statues, but hard as they worked to preserve the Lost Cause vision of southern history, civil rights activists, Black elected officials, and movements of ordinary people fought harder to take the story back. Timely, accessible, and essential, No Common Ground is the story of the seemingly invincible stone sentinels that are just beginning to fall from their pedestals. Our guest is: Dr. Karen L. Cox, who is professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her other books include Dreaming of Dixie: How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture and Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Campus Monuments Researching Racial Injustice A Conversation with Curators from the Smithsonian The Names of All the Flowers What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions Stolen Fragments Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can help support the show by downloading, assigning and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: A large, 33,000 student, Texas school district has lost in court and will be forced to adopt single member districts for its school board. I've no problem with single member districts but I have a huge problem with the bigotry, racism, and dirty trick that is minority-majority districts. Such do nothing positive for minorities and derive from a bigoted idea that all minorities of a similar trait think alike. The 1965 Voting Rights Act has much in it that was simply a trick on minorities by the Democrats.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.From the 89th Texas Legislature: Trump To Endorse Dustin Burrows For Texas House Speaker, and all who voted for SB2/school choice, Abbott Told GOP Caucus. Republican Lawmakers Challenge Speaker Burrows Over Stalled Party Priorities ‘Cannabis civil war': Why Texas lawmakers want to boost medical marijuana and end hemp sales Texas Senate Advances Bill to Reinstate Legal Consequences for Student Violence Against Teachers Uvalde Strong Act active shooter protocol bill passes Texas House Mexico increases its water deliveries to Texas for the Rio Grande.Dallas Fed: Growth resumes in Texas service sector; Retail sales increase but company outlooks deteriorated further.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

When it comes to Confederate monuments, there is no common ground. Polarizing debates over their meaning have intensified into legislative maneuvering to preserve the statues, legal battles to remove them, and rowdy crowds taking matters into their own hands. These conflicts have raged for well over a century—but they've never been as intense as they are today. In No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice (UNC Press, 2021), Dr. Karen L. Cox offers an eye-opening narrative of the efforts to raise, preserve, protest, and remove Confederate monuments. Dr. Cox depicts what these statues meant to those who erected them and how a movement arose to force a reckoning. She shows the forces that drove white southerners to construct beacons of white supremacy, as well as the ways that anti-monument sentiment, largely stifled during the Jim Crow era, returned with the civil rights movement and gathered momentum in the decades after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Monument defenders responded with gerrymandering and "heritage" laws intended to block efforts to remove these statues, but hard as they worked to preserve the Lost Cause vision of southern history, civil rights activists, Black elected officials, and movements of ordinary people fought harder to take the story back. Timely, accessible, and essential, No Common Ground is the story of the seemingly invincible stone sentinels that are just beginning to fall from their pedestals. Our guest is: Dr. Karen L. Cox, who is professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her other books include Dreaming of Dixie: How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture and Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Campus Monuments Researching Racial Injustice A Conversation with Curators from the Smithsonian The Names of All the Flowers What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions Stolen Fragments Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can help support the show by downloading, assigning and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Disability Series. Episode #2 of 4. In 1973, Richard Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act, a bill intended to increasing hiring, extend rehabilitation services and increase assistance programs for Americans with disabilities. In the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, politicians and activists discussed the bill in explicitly civil rights terms, arguing that as the federal government had protected the civil rights of Black Americans and women, it must also protect the rights of disabled people. While there had been other bills focused on rehabilitation and services before, the Rehabilitation Act stood out to disabled Americans for one reason: one sentence in Section 504 of the bill. While other bills had appropriated money for services or called for programs, they didn't include a provision for enforcement – but Section 504 did exactly that. Disabled people saw an opportunity: Section 504 could radically change life for disabled people in the United States. And when the federal government failed to fully enforce Section 504 in the years after its passage, disabled people took matters into their own hands. Find show notes and transcripts at: www.digpodcast.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From "Bloody Sunday" to Modern Activism: Civil Rights Leaders Reflect on LegacyThis show is made possible thanks our members! To become a sustaining member go to https://LauraFlanders.org/donate   Thank you for your continued support!Description: 60 years ago in Selma, Alabama, state troopers beat peaceful protesters bloody on the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched for civil rights. The horror of “Bloody Sunday” and the resilience of the Civil Rights Movement ultimately led to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and many of the landmark achievements that are now directly under attack. As civil rights activists look to history to understand — and prepare for — the present, Laura walks the Bridge and talks with, among others, Sheyann Webb Christburg, who marched at the age of eight, Black Voters Matter co-founders LaTosha Brown and Clifford Albright; law professor and author Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw and Maya Wiley, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. What does people power look like today? Plus, a commentary from Laura on name calling then and now.“We're not going to phone bank our way out of this. We're not going to text our way out of this. And in truth, we're not even going to vote our way out of this . . . It's going to take revisiting some of the same strategies that we saw here in Selma, in terms of nonviolent civil disobedience and direct action.” - Clifford Albright“When we see and hear and think about fascism, we think about anti-democratic movements in Europe. We think about the Holocaust . . . But for Black people, as Langston Hughes said, you don't have to explain to us what fascism is. We experienced it. That is what we were fighting, for the 60, 70 years after Reconstruction was overthrown.” - Kimberlé CrenshawGuests:• Clifford Albright: Co-Founder & Executive Director, Black Voters Matter• Willard and Kiba Armstead: Veteran & Spouse• Trayvon Bossa: Sigma Chapter Member, Miles College Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity• LaTosha Brown: Co-Founder, Black Voters Matter• Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw: Co-Founder & Executive Director, African American Policy Forum; Host of the Intersectionality Matters! Podcast• Noelle Damico: Director of Social Justice, The Workers Circle• Melinda Hicks: Military Family• Jaribu Hill: Executive Director & Founder, Mississippi Workers' Center for Human Rights• Myla Person: Jack and Jill Club, Columbus, Georgia• Ann Toback: CEO, The Workers Circle• Sheyann Webb-Christburg: Youngest Participant,1965 Bloody Sunday March• Maya Wiley: President & CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Watch the broadcast episode cut for time at our YouTube channel and airing on PBS stations across the country Subscribe to episode notes via Patreon Music Credit:  "Tremole" "Jagged" "Thrum of Soil" & "Dawn Summit" by Blue Dot Sessions from the album Empty Outpost.  "Steppin" by Podington Bear. And original sound production and design by Jeannie Hopper.Podcast Endorsement:  Intersectionality Matters! Podcast Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes:•  Rep. John Lewis on Making Justice from Selma to the Present, Watch•  Kimberlé Crenshaw & Soledad O'Brien Call Out the Media on Critical Race Theory, Watch / Listen / Download Podcast•  Reporting on Policing at the Polls & BIPOC Voter Suppression in 2024, Watch / Listen/Download Podcast:  Full Uncut Conversation and Episode• Deciding the Fate of Democracy in North Carolina, Watch / Download Podcast •  The Georgia Way:  Strategies that Work for Winning Elections, Watch / Listen/Download Podcast:  Full Uncut Conversation and Episode Related Articles and Resources:•  Anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday' Marks Continued Fight for Voting Rights, by Temi Adeoye, March 24, 2025, ACLU•  U.S. Civil Rights Trail, Learn More• United State of Amnesia, The Real History of Critical Race Theory, Hosted by Kimberlé Crenshaw Podcast Mini Series•  Documentary Trailer:  “Love, Joy, and Power: Tools for Liberation” follows Cliff Albright and LaTosha Brown as they reshape American democracy. As founders of Black Voters Matter Fund, they didn't just flip Georgia in 2020 - they sparked a movement that's still growing. April 8, 2025, Watch Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders, along with Sabrina Artel, Jeremiah Cothren, Veronica Delgado, Janet Hernandez, Jeannie Hopper, Sarah Miller, Nat Needham, David Neuman, and Rory O'Conner. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

Born in poverty in Texas Hill Country, President Johnson delivered an unsurpassed series of legislation, including the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. Yet by 1968 he was so toxically unpopular that he decided against running again.Don's guest today (for the second time in a row!) is Mark Atwood Lawrence.Mark is Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin and author of ‘The Vietnam War: A Concise International History', ‘Assuming the Burden: Europe and the American Commitment to War in Vietnam' and ‘The End of Ambition: The United States and the Third World in the Vietnam Era'.Produced by Freddy Chick. Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Senior Producer was Charlotte Long.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast.

Slate Senior Writer Mark Joseph Stern joins to break down the latest news out of the Supreme Court and the upcoming SCOTUS docket. https://slate.com/author/mark-joseph-stern https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social Sam and Emma on the latest developments in Trump's manufactured economic crisis before speaking to Mark Joseph Stern, Slate's senior writer covering the Supreme Court and co-host of the Amicus podcast. They cover critical Supreme Court rulings, including the stay on the reinstatement of federal workers fired by the Trump administration and the alarming decision regarding the Alien Enemies Act used to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process. They also delve into the upcoming Supreme Court case Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, which could drastically alter Medicaid and the court's ongoing assault on the Voting Rights Act with the case of Louisiana v. Callais. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Trust and Will: Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting: trustandwill.com/MAJORITY  Delete Me: Text Majority to 64000 for 20% off your DeleteMe subscription   Sunset Lake CBD: Use coupon code LeftIsBest for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

The WIAA just did something incredibly cowardly regarding women’s sports. Fox’s Martha MacCallum got into a heated exchange with Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) who denied some of the waste, fraud, and abuse found by DOGE. Washington parents are concerned that colleges and universities aren’t reporting hazing incidents, which they are required to by state law. // LongForm: GUEST: State Rep. Joshua Penner (R-Orting) is trying to thwart Democrats’ efforts to close a rehabilitation center for people with disabilities. // Quick Hit: Tim Walz’s daughter is forgoing grad school because she claims universities didn’t support far-left protesters enough. A radical MSNBC guest says that all laws passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be considered null and void.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about “The View's” Whoopi Goldberg shocking her viewers by ignoring the changing mood in the country and having Elie Mystal on to promote radical leftist proposals like abolishing all all laws passed before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as supporting Amber Ruffin's comments about Trump voters not being human; Corey Booker setting the record for the longest speech ever for no reason; Stephen Miller explaining to Fox News' Jesse Watters the actual details behind The Atlantic's false reporting of the Trump administration accidentally deporting a US citizen; CNN's Abby Phillip lecturing Scott Jennings about why we should give due process to Tren de Aragua members who came into our country illegally; White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt surprising the press by reading reporters some of the most shocking examples of other countries tariffs against the US; Piers Morgan telling “Fox & Friends” the 2 questions that expose how insane the Democratic Party has become; Kid Rock telling Fox News what Bill Maher and Donald Trump discussed in their special White House meeting; and much more. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Tax Network USA - If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't let the government take advantage of you. Whether you owe a few thousand or a few million, they can help you. Call 1(800)-958-1000 for a private, free consultation or Go to: https://tnusa.com/dave Lean - A powerful weight loss supplement with remarkable results to help lower blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite. Rubin Report viewers get 20% off plus free rush shipping off their first order! Go to: https://TakeLean.com and enter promo code DAVE20 for your discount 1775 Coffee - Get the Longevity Bundle featuring their top-selling Anti-Aging Coffee, the ultra-rare Peaberry blend, an exclusive 1775-branded tumbler, plus more premium coffee and limited-edition merch you can't find anywhere else. Every dollar you spend enters you to win a blacked-out 2024 Tesla Cybertruck plus $30,000 cash! Rubin Report viewers get 15% off their order. Go to: https://1775coffee.com/RUBIN and use code RUBIN Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Louisiana’s congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two […]

Jon Lovett joins Leah and Melissa to talk about what's at stake in this week's Wisconsin Supreme Court election and what it was like campaigning for Susan Crawford in Madison and Milwaukee. Then, the ladies run through a busy week of argument recaps, opinions, and legal news, covering the relitigation of the Voting Rights Act, the sunsetting of the administrative state, and that text chain.Hosts' favorite things this week:Leah: After Dobbs, David Cohen & Carol Jaffe; Mayhem, Lady Gaga; Black Bag, Steven Soderbergh; Wrexford & Sloane mystery series by Andrea Penrose; Lawsuits by Wilmer & Jenner challenging wildly unconstitutional executive orders; Judge Howell's order rejecting the request for her to recuse in the challenge to the EO targeting the Perkins Coie orderMelissa: Last week's episode of Strict Scrutiny; A Season of Light, Julie Iromuanya; The Note, Alafair Burke; Yacht Rock: The Dockumentary (Max); Gwyneth and Meghan on Instagram; New Phone; Houthis? (Christian Schneider on X); Text STOP to opt out of war plans (Leta McCullough Seletsky on Bluesky) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

The Gaslit Nation Media Committee, a watchdog against access journalism and regime propaganda, has developed this essential guide. We urge all members of the media to reject complicity in the erosion of democracy.   The American crisis is a global struggle between democracy and fascism—one that threatens the entire world. Each of us has a role in defending freedom. If you work in media, use this guide to safeguard your integrity, your liberty, and the values we cherish—before it's too late. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy.   1. Don't Bury the Lede: Call It an Illegal Tech-Backed Coup To build trust, stick to the facts. When Trump's administration acts illegally, say it—especially in the headline. Call it what it is: a tech-backed coup that exposes Americans' most sensitive data and replaces federal workers with unsecured A.I. to establish a new surveillance state. 2. Make Private Prison Execs Famous Investigate the financial interests behind Trump's immigration system—expose executives, board members, and their connections. Pursue them with cameras; they can't hide behind profits while lives are ruined and civil liberties eroded. 3. Fascism Needs Ignorance From dismantling the Department of Education to the “War on Woke” in universities, Trump continues delegitimizing education. This isn't about competition with other countries—it's about giving everyone the chance to grow as independent thinkers who reject fascism. 4. Follow the Money Investigate Trump's major donors and their role in Musk's illegal purge of government services. Hold them accountable—ask how they view their investments amid the chaos. Track their contracts and regulatory benefits. 5. Expose National Security Threats Trump removed key military officials who prevented unlawful actions. Without them, who will stop him? Trump holds the nuclear football, cozying up to adversaries, sending bombs to Israel, and threatening wars against Canada and Greenland. Focus on how our adversaries are taking advantage. 6. Kleptowatch Focus on how companies exploit customers through greedflation and Amazon's payola for search visibility. While the Biden administration has much to answer for, the media must spotlight the absence of enforcement of investigations brought by Lina Khan and Tim Wu, leaving corporate kleptocrats unchecked. 7. Media Must Thoroughly Cover Media Journalists must cover media attacks, including blocked access to info and censorship (e.g., Ann Telnaes at WaPo). Report on media ecosystem shifts, address bias, and clarify distinctions between reporting, opinion, and lies. Provide context on media ownership. 8. Draw Historical Parallels Trump, Musk, and allies are enacting policies similar to dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. The media must challenge their unfounded assertions. They are attacking the press and critics, reminiscent of regimes like Pol Pot's and Rwanda's genocide. 9. Trump is Trying to Turn America into an Autocracy: Act Like It Columbia Journalism Review shared 10 essential tips for journalists reporting from autocracies. Share these with your teams, including your company's lawyers—killing big stories and obeying in advance is self-destructive. 10. Shine a Light on Private Prisons The private prison industry needs scrutiny, especially with Trump's lack of oversight. Innocent people are caught in reckless immigration raids as the system grows unchecked. Regular coverage of Guantanamo Bay is crucial due to its history of unlawful detention and Trump's plan for a prison camp there for 30,000 people. 11. Gilead is Here The media has abandoned calling out Trump's toxic masculinity regarding reproductive rights and civil rights. Raise awareness of the deadly consequences for women, including trans women, and all nonwhite people. 12. Access Journalism is Betrayal Fascism's history includes journalists from major outlets becoming "masters of euphemism," (to quote Gareth Jones), downplaying atrocities and broken laws to protect access. History will remember you for doing your job or being bought. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy. 13. Family Members Deserve Special Attention Trump's administration is granting lucrative positions to family members of allies and donors, giving them undue influence over policy. These self-dealing networks must be mapped and exposed. 14. Unmask Voter Suppression Election analysis must address gerrymandering, unfair Senate representation favoring "red states," the Electoral College designed to protect elites, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Don't treat our voter suppression crisis like "horse race" politics. 15. Focus on the 1% Expose extreme wealth inequality—how the 1% dodge taxes and exploit loopholes to preserve their wealth. Put a spotlight on how inequality fuels authoritarianism and is a direct threat to democracy. 16. Cover Protests Highlight actions challenging the White House's destructive crimes. People need to see that citizens care about the laws being broken by Trump's administration and that they're not alone. 17. They're Testing Boundaries: Say It When something is "unprecedented," that means they're testing boundaries, to see what they can get away with. Say it. 18. The Weird Fights Matter Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America may seem "weird," but it's part of the fascist pageantry, like Mussolini's famous eyeliner and Putin's shirtless photos. Look to experts in autocracy to see which stories are being used as a distraction and which stories are important to cover.  An expanded version of the Gaslit Nation Media Guide can be found here: https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/media-guide   For More: Ten Tips for Reporting in an Autocracy American journalists have much to learn from colleagues in countries where democracy has been under siege. https://www.cjr.org/political_press/ten-tips-for-reporting-in-an-autocracy.php   Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Music Credit: "Tafi Maradi no voice" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica examines a pivotal voting rights case before the Supreme Court concerning Louisiana's congressional district lines. The case touches on the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Jessica reviews the legal arguments, reflects on past decisions like Shelby County, and explores the case's broader implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court Case: Jessica Levinson delves into a Supreme Court case concerning the Voting Rights Act, highlighting a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districting. The essential question is whether the state violated the Act by diluting voting power or violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race excessively in district creation.Louisiana District Lines Controversy: After the census, Louisiana's district lines came under scrutiny for having only one majority minority district, leading to lawsuits. The state later redrew the map to include two majority minority districts, sparking a new suit from non-African American voters claiming the excessive use of race in drawing these lines.Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause: The tension between complying with the Voting Rights Act and the constraints of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a major theme. The conversation touches on recent affirmative action cases, emphasizing the court's perspective that race should not be the predominant factor.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of the Bill Press Pod, Bill interviews Ellie Mystal, Legal Analyst and Justice Correspondent for The Nation, on his new book, Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America. Mystal identifies ten laws plus a constitutional amendment that he argues are detrimental to America. During their conversation, they discuss the misconception of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) as redefined by Republicans, the problematic impact of the Hyde Amendment on abortion rights, and the adverse effects of mandatory minimum sentencing from crime bills supported by both Democrats and Republicans. They also delve into voting rights, gun liability laws, and the lack of effective representation in Congress, suggesting reforms like the Wyoming Rule for more equitable representation. Mystal underscores the role of neoliberalism in shaping harmful laws and calls for a reevaluation of laws passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act.You can purchase your own copy of Elie Mystal's new book here.Today Bill highlights the work of The Nation magazine. A powerful progressive voice for over 160 years. Bill has been a subscriber for decades and it gives a platform for people like Elie Mystal. Sign up at TheNation.com. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After a deep dive on the Trump administration's horrifying misuse of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people from the US without due process, Kate and Leah preview upcoming SCOTUS cases about the Voting Rights Act and the Environmental Protection Agency. Along the way, they also touch on the Trump administration's targeting of certain law firms and its continued attacks on DEI. Hosts' favorite things this week: Leah: Fight! Fight! Fight!, Rebecca Traister; AOC's Bluesky feed during the CR debates/debacle; The Hidden Motive Behind Trump's Attacks on Trans People, M. Gessen; This Election Will Be a Crucial Test of Musk's Power, Kate Shaw; Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional, Jamelle BouieKate: The Feminist Law Professor Who Wants to Stop Arresting People for Domestic Violence, Sarah Lustbader; The Dangerous Document Behind Trump's Campus Purges, Daphna Renan & Jesse  Hoffnung-Garskof; The Cost of the Government's Attack on Columbia, Christopher L. Eisgruber Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

A case in which the Court will decide whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state's prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state's prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

There's a troubling sense of normalcy bias among some Democratic leaders who believe they'll regain their footing in the 2026 midterms, riding another anti-Trump wave. But here's the critical question: will the United States even have free and fair elections? To answer that, we need to look back and ask: was the 2024 U.S. election free and fair? Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and those around them, break the law so brazenly, how can we trust they came to power without breaking the law?    According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, this week's guest and director of the must-see film Vigilantes Inc., which you can watch for free, the answer is a resounding no. Palast's analysis reveals the shocking normalization of Republican voter suppression: over 3.5 million votes were effectively canceled in 2024. This means 3.5 million Americans were denied their fundamental right to vote. And according to Palast, a significant number of suppressed voters are nonwhite. This isn't just voter suppression; it's a modern-day resurrection of Jim Crow, fueled by the Republican Party's relentless assault on democracy. In this week's bonus episode, out Friday, Elie Mystal, the Justice Correspondent for The Nation, and author of the new book Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, explains how the GOP's reaction to the first Black president was to gut the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for Trump.    In this week's bonus episode, we also continue our conversation with Palast, diving into the power of film as a powerful force for confronting America's darkest history. Plus, we'll also hear from Mystal on why European nations must take a stand by imposing a travel ban on Ivanka Trump and others complicit in the destruction of our democracy—a move that could help hold the Musk-Trump regime accountable for its action, along with divestment strategies that brought down Apartheid. Don't miss this eye-opening episode, out Friday!   Thank you to everyone who supports the show–we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!   Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Show Notes: Watch Vigilantes, Inc. by Greg Palast for free: https://www.watchvigilantesinc.com/ Bad Law Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America https://thenewpress.com/books/bad-law   Events at Gaslit Nation   Feb 24 4pm ET – Gaslit Nation Book Club at our Gaslit Nation Salon to discuss Albert Camu's The Stranger (Matthew Ward translation) and Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning March 17 4pm ET – Dr. Lisa Corrigan joins our Gaslit Nation Salon to discuss America's private prison crisis in an age of fascist scapegoating  NEW! Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon. ONGOING! Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon. NEW! Climate Crisis Committee launched in the Patreon Chat thanks to a Gaslit Nation listener who holds a PhD in Environmental Sciences NEW! Caretaker Committee launched in the Patreon Chat for our listeners who are caretakers and want to share resources, vent, and find community  NEW! Public Safety page added to GaslitNationPod.com to help you better protect yourself from this lunacy (i.e. track recalls, virus threats, and more!)  ONGOING! Have you taken Gaslit Nation's HyperNormalization Survey Yet? ONGOING! Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community