Amicus: A Law Review

This episode dives into unexpected alliances at the Supreme Court, with Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch questioning the government's pursuit of a double jeopardy case against a Mexican national. The discussion then shifts to the FCC's political advertising rules, where a recent Supreme Court ruling favors the Trump administration, potentially amplifying pre-election ad blitzes. The episode also explores significant district court decisions, including a judge's dismissal of a Trump administration lawsuit against New York's sanctuary policies and another judge rejecting a former CIA Director's bid to preserve Justice Department records. Lastly, the Trump administration's latest legal maneuver against California's voter rolls is scrutinized, highlighting ongoing tensions over state versus federal authority.

The episode dives into the U.S. Supreme Court's latest term, spotlighting upcoming cases like Beard vs. United States on sentencing guidelines and Salazar vs. Paramount Global on video privacy. It explores the Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County case, examining state vs. federal law on environmental issues, with Chief Justice Roberts' unexpected stance raising eyebrows. The shadow docket emerges with an FCC rulemaking battle on political ad rates, paused by Chief Justice Roberts. Meanwhile, the Justice Department charges Venezuela's Maduro with torture, and Tennessee’s botched execution of Krista Pike stirs Eighth Amendment debates. Legal complexities abound in this judicial drama.

A pivotal case questions if bans on high-capacity weapons, like AR-15s, infringe on constitutional rights, reigniting the Second Amendment debate with historical context. Meanwhile, voter rights take center stage as Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement faces scrutiny for potential discrimination, challenging the National Voter Registration Act. ERISA fiduciary duties are under fire with Intel's investment policy in the spotlight, examining fund management prudence. Finally, the Air Force's alleged environmental oversight on Guam sparks a legal battle over hazardous waste disposal and compliance with NEPA and RICRA. Stay tuned!

This episode dives into a federal court order challenging the President's attempt to ban CNN, MSNOW, and Politico from the White House, citing First Amendment and due process violations. The judge's decision mandates reinstating press credentials, dismissing national security claims as baseless. We also unravel the Supreme Court's contentious green-lighting of an expansive voter screening tool ahead of the midterms, despite dissent over potential voter disenfranchisement. As the shadow docket looms large, the episode exposes the ongoing legal tug-of-war in press access, voting rights, and deportation policies, revealing the judiciary's critical role in safeguarding democracy.

On the 25th anniversary of September 11, Jim Santelle reflects on the events of that tragic day and its profound aftermath. Sharing his personal experiences as an interim U.S. Attorney, he recounts the chaos and unity that followed the attacks, including the grounded plans of Attorney General John Ashcroft. Santelle explores the enduring impact on American law and governance, and his later involvement in Iraq, highlighting the complexities of the war and efforts to establish a republic amidst controversy. Through memories of loss and unity, he underscores the importance of resilience and justice in shaping America’s future.

In a landmark legal settlement, Meta agrees to pay $17.1 billion to resolve allegations it endangered children through its addictive platforms, marking a major victory for state attorneys general. The Washington Post's arbitration ruling orders the reinstatement of an opinion writer, fueling debates on press freedom and free speech. Meanwhile, an ICE agent dodges extradition between Texas and Minnesota in a contentious legal battle. The Supreme Court, active on its shadow docket, allows controversial Trump administration actions on mail-in voting and a ballroom construction to proceed. It also backs Texas's age verification law for app users, reflecting ongoing tensions in tech regulation.

Dive into the legal whirlwind as our host unpacks a guilty plea in a federal stalking case, while he contests murder charges in state court. The Supreme Court's docket heats up with a pivotal religious rights case about Catholic preschools and same-sex couples. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's contentious mail-in ballot and White House ballroom orders face judicial scrutiny. Harvard scores a win as a federal judge dismisses the Trump administration’s anti-Semitism lawsuit. In New York, a judge halts the city's tax on second homes, leaving a mayoral campaign promise in limbo. Judicial drama unfolds across federal and state arenas.

In the final installment of his four-part series on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term, Jim Santelle examines the Court’s most consequential rulings on elections and voting rights. He recaps key statistics from the term before diving into major decisions involving mail-in ballots, campaign finance, and the landmark Louisiana v. Callais ruling, which reshapes how race can be considered in congressional redistricting. Santelle explains how the decision builds on earlier Voting Rights Act cases, explores its nationwide impact on gerrymandering and future elections, and discusses what these changes could mean for voters heading into the 2026 midterms and beyond. The episode concludes the Court review series before Amicus: A Law Review returns to its weekly analysis of current legal and constitutional issues.

In this episode of Amicus: A Law Review, host Jim Santelle continues his summer series examining the most significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2025–2026 term. This week, the focus turns to the Second Amendment and the evolving constitutional landscape surrounding gun rights in America. Drawing from landmark cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Jim explains how the Court’s interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms has changed over time and how those decisions continue to shape modern firearms law.

The episode also explores the Court’s newest rulings involving firearm possession by marijuana users, concealed carry restrictions on private property, domestic violence restraining orders, and regulations on ghost guns. Jim breaks down what these decisions mean for gun owners, lawmakers, and the courts while previewing a major case the Supreme Court will hear next term on state bans of semiautomatic rifles. Whether you’re interested in constitutional law, public policy, or the future of the Second Amendment, this episode provides the historical context and legal analysis needed to understand one of the nation’s most debated constitutional rights.

Federal district court judges are making waves! Jim Santelle dissects Judge Dudek’s fiery rebuke of the DOJ’s mishandling of an immigrant’s right to due process, leading to the detainee’s release. Judge Sorokin’s takedown of a $100,000 visa fee for skilled workers as an illegal tax showcases judicial pushback against executive overreach. Judge Bosberg denies DOJ’s request to erase a ruling that exposed their harassment of Jerome Powell. Meanwhile, the Kennedy Center removes Trump’s name, sparking legal and financial fallout. The Supreme Court faces pivotal cases on gun rights, immigration, and presidential power. Justice is alive and kicking!