Legale§e

Episode # 74 Today on Legalese we are breaking down the decision in Trump v Anderson, in which a unanimous Supreme Court would hold that Donald Trump may not be removed from State ballots in either the primary or general election on grounds that he is an insurrectionist for the purposes of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Episode # 78 Today on Legalese we are taking on a viral criticism of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that happened following the Court's oral arguments a few days ago in the Murthy v Missouri case. Now the only problem with the criticisms these conservatives raised is everything. They got everything wrong. This was a willful slander of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by a number of prominent conservatives, especially Jim Jordan who intentionally misrepresented Justice Jackson and attacked her for saying something she never actually said. This episode takes a look at what this criticism was, why the conservative were not just wrong, but acted with malicious mal-intent and a discussion of a number of profound lessons that can be learned from this shit show that really cast worrisome gaze on the so-called "culture war" that is poisoning pretty much every facet of American politics. Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Episode # 79 Today on Legalese we have my second official video on the social media mass censorship case Murthy v. Missouri. On Monday, March 18th, 2024 this case went before the Supreme Court for oral arguments and they were an exhilarating and controversial session indeed. Though not for any of the actually upsetting and controversial aspects of this case. Rather it was controversial because of a comment posed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that to me, seemed to be the most sensible, relevant, least controversial comment of the entire Court session.... But I have already discussed that in my last episode "Conservatives Say The Darndest Things". Today we will be doing a deep dive into the full session of oral arguments, which were fascinating, but lead us to some very disturbing updates on the potential future of this case. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-murthy-v-missouri-oral Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Episode #80 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the case National Rifle Association v. Vullo. This is a case from my Supreme Court Roundup that we last discussed back in November 2023 when the Supreme Court would grant cert on this case. Last Monday March 18th, 2024, the Court would hear oral arguments in this case. In today's episode we will be reviewing the facts of the case and the procedural history in the lower courts, then take a deep dive into the merits of the case coming before the court and I provide a breakdown of the oral arguments, including clips of key moment during the hearing, as well as my analysis of the arguments made and the potential outcomes in this case, along with my prediction of the final outcome when the Court hands down their opinion this summer. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-national-rifle-assoc-v Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Episode # 81 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the case of Gonzalez v. Trevino. This case posits a novel claim of first amendment retaliation. The Court is being asked to decide what counts as "objective evidence" that someone was arrested in retaliation for constitutionally protected activity. Opening mini-documentary created and originally published by Institute For Justice here: https://youtu.be/bIu1s3srVWo?si=fegcTLGzVXT3TpaQ Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-gonzalez-v-trevino-primer Follow • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/ • Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ • Check out my new book Constitutional Sleight of Hand: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Support • PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ • Venmo: https://venmo.com/LockeanLiberal • Locals: https://locals.com/legalese ►00:00 Institute For Justice Doc ►05:33 Legalese Intro ►05:59 Gonzalez v. Trevino Intro ►11:45 Facts Of The Case ►26:55 Procedural History ►35:39 Fifth Circuit Appeals ►39:51 Questions Presented ►40:15 Conclusions

Episode #82 In the case of Gonzalez v. Trevino, the core revolves around a First Amendment retaliation claim, presenting a pivotal examination of free speech rights and government response. The essence of such a claim lies in the allegation that an individual's speech, protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, was met with retaliatory actions by government officials or entities, hence infringing upon their rights to free speech. As the Supreme Court entertained oral arguments for this case, the justices were tasked with dissecting intricate legal precedents, the specifics of the retaliatory actions alleged, and the broader implications for free speech protections. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-gonzalez-v-trevino-oral • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/ • Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ • Check out my new book Constitutional Sleight of Hand: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Support The Show • PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ • Venmo: https://venmo.com/LockeanLiberal • Locals: https://locals.com/legalese

Episode # 83 Today on Legalese we are discussing the the Biden Administration’s new agency rules put into effect by the Department of Labor, meant to be the first step to destroying the ‘gig economy’ on the national level. This reality is one that I have been warning about for the better part of five years, and it finally seems to be coming to fruition. This move is meant to "regulate" freelance workers and independent contractors, with the government insisting independent contractors are being exploited and must be saved from their own choices. Really this is nothing more than a move to force millions of people who enjoy the flexibility and freedom of working as an independent contractor to join labor unions as dues paying members. We will be covering what these new Department of Labor regulations say and do, as well as looking at the various pieces of legislation they are based on to try and understand the real-world effect these regulations will have. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-freelance-is-dead-long • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 84 Today on Legalese, we are discussing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sheetz v El Dorado County in which the Supreme Court would find that extortion is unconstitutional. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-supreme-court-finds-extortion • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 85 Support The Institute For Justice - https://ij.org/support/give-now/devillier In Devillier v. Texas, the Supreme Court delivers a property rights hat trick. Following the Supreme Court's rulings in Tyler v. Hennepin County and Sheetz v County Of El Dorado, Devillier v. Texas is now the third landmark takings clause precedent in a row to side with property rights over sovereign immunity and the "compelling government interest" argument. This is both notable and commendable— Especially considering this takings clause trifecta has consisted of three unanimous opinions, despite the fact that for decades, takings clause cases have traditionally split the Justices along the ideological right/left divide. On the other hand, this ruling would prove to be much more narrow in its scope than many people had hoped for and expected. The Court declined to address the question presented directly, which asked whether people can seek redress under the self-executing takings clause if the legislature has not provided them with an affirmative cause of action. The Court also failed to address the initial issue in this case, which was the Catch-22 the state of Texas employed to avoid their obligation to pay just compensation for the taking. Today on Legalese we will be going through the opinion of the court to break down precisely what the court’s unanimous decision does and does not accomplish. As well as exploring some fascinating tangential aspects of this opinion. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-devillier-v-texas-wrap • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 86 Today on Legalese we have the latest installment in my series "Constitutional Myths and Misconceptions." Today we will be address myths surrounding Article V, which outlines the two methods of amending the Constitution. We will be addressing the "runaway convention" fallacy. This is the belief that such a convention would be unlimited and uncontrollable in its scope and process. Fortunately the deep dive into this topic that this episode takes will demonstrate conclusively there is no aspect of that scenario that is supported by our history or our laws. Show Notes For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-article-v-myths-and-misconceptions • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 87 Today on Legalese we discuss the recent announcement by the Department of Justice that the DEA will be rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act from Schedule I to Schedule III. We discuss why this move is entirely worthless in that it accomplishes none of the goals the Biden Administration say they are passing it to accomplish. We also explore why such moves are meaningless by intent. Because all of these arguments and debates take place within an acceptable window of dissent to avoid ever having a conversation about the fact that it is immoral for the government to dictate which substances a person is permitted to consume, whether it is alcohol, tobacco, herbal remedies, saturated fat, marijuana, etc. These decisions belong to individual people, not the government. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-why-rescheduling-marijuana • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 89 Today on Legalese, we are going to be discussing the case of Hughes v. Few, A Qualified Immunity case that came before the Fifth Circuit earlier this month. Issue: Under a §1983 claim, can two police officers claim qualified immunity after arresting a Good Samaritan who effectuated a legitimate citizen’s arrest and was subsequently charged with Impersonating a Police Officer after the officers filed a patently false arrest affidavit? Though this case will likely be relevant only to those whose practice involves civil, §1983 qualified-immunity claims, if you’re looking for an interesting read, egregious facts, and a snarky opinion by a clearly offended judicial panel—this is it. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-hughes-v-few-qualified • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 90 Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the recent Supreme Court decision in the civil asset forfeiture case of Culley v. Marshall. This video will not be a comprehensive case breakdown, rather we will be focusing on the fact that even though this case is a prima facie loss for Due Process, the Constitution and Property Rights— When looking past the surface level, there is actually quite a lot about this case to get excited about. A majority of the Court seem ready and willing, given the proper case, to declare that any move by the government to seize assets would require a jury trial prior to that asset seizure. This would finally bring civil asset forfeiture fully into conformity with the Constitution’s 5th and 14th amendment’s due process clauses. This is what I want to talk about today. Because I truly believe victory may yet be snatched from the jaws of today's defeat. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-the-beginning-of-the-end • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 91 Today on Legalese, we discuss the case of Dexter Taylor. New York has sentenced a 53-year-old black man with no criminal history to 10 years behind bars for the crime of exercising his constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. Dexter Taylor, a software engineer from Brooklyn, was raided by police and arrested in 2022 after Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzales, the man who pledged to lead “the most progressive D.A.’s office in the country,” brought a 37-count indictment against him. The crime? Taylor was using his skills as a machinist to build his own firearms, specifically firearms that Democrats have nicknamed “ghost guns,” or guns built by nontraditional manufacturers. Taylor’s family has created a GiveSendGo to help with his legal fees as he prepares to fight his case, which could go as high as the Supreme Court. •Dexter Taylor Legal Defense Fund - https://www.givesendgo.com/dtaylor_2a_legal •Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-dexter-taylor-case • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 92 Today on Legalese we have a decision in the NRA v. Vullo case. It is a major victory for the First Amendment and gun rights. The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 30, 2024 reinstated a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, alleging that a New York official violated the group’s First Amendment rights when she urged banks and insurance companies not to do business with them. In a unanimous decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the justices agreed that the NRA had made their case that Maria Vullo, then the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, had gone too far in her efforts to get companies and banks to cut ties with the NRA, crossing over the line from efforts to persuade the companies and banks – which would be permitted – to attempts to coerce them, which are not. Show Notes Page For: NRA v. Vullo's Supreme Court Wrap-Up Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-nra-v-vullo-wrap-up • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 93 Today on Legalese, we are discussing the Supreme Court's decision in Vidal v. Elster (Also known as the "Trump Too Small" case). This case arises from Steve Elster’s efforts to register the phrase “Trump Too Small” so that he could print and sell t-shirts bearing that phrase. The court on Thursday, June 13, 2024 unanimously rejected an attempt to force the Patent and Trademark Office to accept the registration “Trump too small” as a trademark for T-shirts mocking the former president. Show Notes page for this episode: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/supreme-court-deliver-their-opinion • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode #94 Today on Legalese, we are wrapping up the Supreme Court case of Garland v. Cargill. We have been following this case here on this channel for the past 2+ years as it wound its way through the lower courts. We now have a final resolution on the matter, as the Supreme Court, on Friday June 14, 2024 would issue their opinion on the case. The Supreme Court would hold that a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine under 26 U.S.C. §5845(b). As such the Trump Administration's decision to reclassify bump stocks as a machinegun through the ATF's regulatory rulemaking power was an affront to the rule of law and separation of powers. The Court would hold that any regulation of bump stocks would have to come from Congressional legislation. As such, the ATF's attempt to ban these devices was unlawful and unconstitutional. Show Notes page for this episode: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/supreme-court-smacks-down-bump-stock • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode #95 Today on Legalese, we wrap up our in-depth coverage of the Supreme Court case of Gonzalez v. Trevino. The Court would issue a per curiam opinion that is a major victory for Sylvia Gonzalez, as her case will now be allowed to move forward in the Fifth Circuit, under instructions from the Supreme Court guiding the lower courts to adopt Sylvia Gonzalez's first amendment retaliation claim, utilizing the Nieves exception as argued by Sylvia Gonzalez. • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode #96 The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a provision of a 2017 corporate tax reform law, known as the mandatory repatriation tax, that taxes the undistributed profits from U.S. shares of foreign corporations in which Americans own a majority. An American couple had challenged the constitutionality of the one-time tax, which was imposed on earnings after 1986 and would increase the couple’s tax bill by approximately $15,000. But by a vote of 7-2, the court ruled that the tax does not violate the Constitution. • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode #97 The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of 6-3, the court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit. Show Notes Page - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/supreme-court-supports-censorship • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode #98 Today on Legalese, we will be wrapping up the Supreme Court case SEC v. Jarkesy. This has been one of the most anticipated of all cases for this term and it was well worth the wait! In a powerful and compelling opinion for the court written by Chief Justice John Roberts, this case has struck a devastating blow to the Administrative State, while also powerfully protecting our Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases. Show Notes Page - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/an-epic-victory-for-your-right-to • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode #99 Today we are looking at the decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, two cases whose final outcome has finally entirely overruled Chevron v. NRDC (1984)... The damned case that created Chevron Deference and gave the administrative state broadly unconstitutional powers that would give Article II Executive Agencies powers granted under the Constitution to the legislature under Article I and the federal judiciary under Article III. Show Notes Page For Loper Bright Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/chevron-is-dead • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Independence Day Celebration • Legalese Home Page - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - https://legaleseshow.com/

Episode # 75 Today on legalese, we will be discussing the recent round of oral arguments that were brought before the Supreme Court last Wednesday in Garland v Cargill. This is the Bump Stock case that will decide whether or not a bump stock is a machine gun under federal law. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-garland-v-cargill-oral Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Episode # 76 Today on Legalese we are going to be covering the upcoming Supreme Court case Murthy v Missouri. This video will be covering the case background, the facts of the case and its procedural history up to and including the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court in this case last year on July 04, 2023 when this case was named "Missouri v Biden"... The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments this coming Monday, March 18th. This case, which deals with the government censoring social media through jawboning, the practice of doing indirectly things they are not allowed to do directly by leaning on intermediaries to do their dirty work for them. In this case, the government has been using threats, coercion and intimidation of social media companies to censor the speech of millions of Americans. This will be the the first of two videos about this case covering the necessary information for you to be able to follow and understand the case for yourself when it comes before the Court next week. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-murthy-v-missouri Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.