On August 14, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis announced that the grand jury had returned a criminal indictment against Trump and eighteen other defendants for what they did in the days and weeks after the 2020 election. The story told by the indictment is that this group were part of a criminal enterprise that worked towards one singular goal: overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.

One of the people indicted is former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. He is trying to get his case tried in federal court instead of Georgia state court. 

In his petition, Meadows cites a 1899 case about margarine.  Yes, margarine.

19th century "zombie" laws are shambling into the abortion debate. The Comstock Act of 1873 made it illegal to send “obscene, lewd or lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” material through the mail. Does that include abortion pills?

On April 4th (that’s tomorrow as I record this) former President Trump is expected to be arraigned in a Manhattan court room. He was indicted by a New York grand jury last week but the exact charges against him remain unknown until he appears in court. On Thursday last week, Elizabeth Joh and I recorded an episode all about the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into Trump’s alleged hush money payments and the New York grand jury deliberations. About an hour after we finished that recording, the grand jury indictment was announced. All the reporting so far has indicated that the charges and circumstances around the alleged crimes conform to everything we discussed on March 30th last week, so I thought releasing this was still valuable even though it’s a developing story.

New York's 3rd Congressional District elected a newcomer named George Santos in November of 2022. Since the election, it was revealed that Santos lied about nearly everything on his resume. What does the Constitution say about lies, punishing lies, and  punishing someone who lies to get elected?

It’s been established law that it is wrong for businesses to discriminate against customers because of their race or ethnic background, but what if a business owner refuses to serve someone because of their sexual orientation? And what if that business owner asserts that serving a gay customer violates their first amendment rights?