UNBIASED - LAW: Week in Review: August 29, 2022

Episode Date: September 5, 2022

(0:25) Intro(1:46) President Biden Addresses the Nation re: MAGA Extremists(5:23) New York's Gun Laws and a Gun-Free Times Square(21:46) Kansas Teacher Settles Lawsuit with School District Over Gender Pronouns(35:52) United States Approves Potential $1.1B Weapons Sale to Taiwan(39:04) White House Asks Congress for $47.1B for Ukraine, COVID, Monkeypox, and Natural Disaster Relief Links to sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. any outside noise. Today we're covering five stories. You guys know it varies by the week. Sometimes it's three, sometimes it's four, sometimes it's five. Today it happens to be five. So we'll start with a recap of President Biden's Thursday night address. We'll then talk about New York's new gun laws and why Times Square is now a gun-free zone. We'll get into a settlement in Kansas that stemmed from gender pronouns and left a retired teacher $95,000 richer. We'll talk about the potential $1.1 billion arms sale to Taiwan that has China feeling pretty unhappy with the U.S. at the moment. And we'll wrap up the episode

talking about the White House's recent ask to Congress, totaling $47.1 billion. So definitely a lot to cover today. The last two stories are shorter than the rest. But without further ado, let's get into President Biden's speech. president biden took the stage on thursday september 1st to address the nation he did so with independence hall lit up in red lights and two marines standing behind him he opened his speech by saying that quote this nation's quality and democracy are under assault. He made his speech from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a reason. He wanted to go back to the place where the nation began to tell the nation that there is absolutely no room for political violence in America and that

we must defend our democracy. But if you missed the 25 minute speech, I will recap it for you in a few bullet points. Basically, he said Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent a form of extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. But he says not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans are MAGA Republicans. So he was sure not to call out Republicans as a whole, but just those extremists. He also said MAGA Republicans do not respect the constitution and are determined to take America backwards to a place where there is no right to choose, no right to marry who you love and no right to contraception. He discussed

January 6th and the election fraud debacle and said MAGA Republicans are a continued threat and that together we must choose a better path to the future. American democracy is not guaranteed. We have to stand up for it and defend it regardless of ideology. Now look, most Americans can agree that the main message was great. That message being we all must work together regardless of our ideology. That's what I always preach to you guys. But here's my thing. As the president, he should have pointed out that the extremists are on both sides. Both sides, not just the Republican side and not just the Democrat side. There are extremists on both sides. You know, when I was listening to his speech, a few statements stood out to me where I was like, you know what? This is the perfect opportunity to talk about the left and the right, the Republicans and the Democrats, the conservatives and the liberals. At one point he said, quote, you can't love your country only when you win. And that's true. That's totally 100% true.

But you have to tell that to both sides. Because when President Trump won, you had the people who didn't vote for him saying, not my president, and people wanting to leave the country. That statement should be told to the American people as a whole. And the second statement that stood out to me was, quote, American democracy only works if we choose to respect the rule of law and the institutions that were set up in the hall behind me, only if we respect the legitimate political differences. But the truth is, the respect is lacking on both sides. And this was another perfect opportunity to address the nation as a whole and not just the extreme Republicans.

So that's what I have to say about that. As always, I want to hear your thoughts on this. I don't judge one way or the other. I just want us to be able to hear each other's perspectives and have substantive discussion. You can always comment on these topics on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. Each episode description page has a comment section if you scroll down to the bottom of the page. And you guys really took advantage of that last episode and I loved being able to discuss with you guys. So definitely do that for this episode as well. So with that, let's move on to the new gun laws in New York. The next time you're walking around Times Square,

you may see some new signs that you haven't seen before, and they read gun-free zone. This is because as of Thursday, September 1st, a new New York law established certain sensitive places that guns will not be allowed, even with a lawful concealed carry permit. The new law comes after the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, otherwise known as NYSRPA versus Bruin, but you'll hear me just refer to it as Bruin, which said that the provision of New York's penal law regarding carrying a firearm violated the 14th Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

And we're going to go through that holding and kind of break it down. So let's start with Bruin at the beginning, and then we'll make our way to the revised New York law so it all makes sense. licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their interest in self-defense. This happened years ago, by the way. This was like 2014, 2015 when they applied. The state of New York denied both of their applications because they failed to establish proper cause as the law requires. In other words, the state said they had failed to demonstrate a unique need for the license. So in order to get a license for purposes of self-defense, to be able to carry it in public or carry a gun in public, according to New York law, you had to show a unique need for self-defense. It wasn't enough that you just said you wanted to protect yourself. So the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association then sued the state officials on behalf of the two men that were denied licenses,

alleging that state officials violated the two men's second and 14th Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on prior state precedent, which had upheld New York's proper cause standard. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to dismiss the lawsuit, and then the case landed in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision was a 6-3 decision, and the majority opinion was written by the controversial Justice Thomas. And here's what you need to know. So, in 43 states, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six states, including

New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license on the showing of some additional special need. And the Supreme Court says this is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to require an applicant to demonstrate a special need for self-defense. According to the New York law, at the time that the Supreme Court heard the case, it has since been revised, but back in June 2022, a licensed applicant who wanted to possess a firearm at home or in his place of business must show that he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that no good cause exists for the denial of the license. On the other hand, if the applicant wants to carry a firearm outside of his home or place of business for self-defense purposes, the applicant must obtain

an unrestricted license. That's the name that was given to the license. To get an unrestricted license, the applicant must show that proper cause existed. If the applicant couldn't show proper cause, he could only get a restricted license for public carry, which allows carrying for a limited purpose like hunting, employment, or target shooting, but not self-defense. But here's the issue. The law didn't define proper cause. Instead, there was state precedent from other cases that had held things like an applicant chose proper cause only if he can demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community. But again, proper cause itself wasn't defined by law. So it was determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, one case found

that living or working in an area noted for criminal activity is not sufficient for proper cause. Instead, New York courts generally require evidence of particular threats, attacks, or other extraordinary danger to personal safety. So it wasn't enough that you simply said, I live in a dangerous neighborhood or burglaries are happening in my neighborhood. Like that, that wasn't enough. There had to be evidence of particular threats, attacks, or extraordinary danger. So in ruling that this proper cause requirement violated the Constitution, the Supreme Court relied on two prior Supreme Court cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In those cases, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect an individual

right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that under Heller, when the plain text of the 2nd Amendment covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and that a state government cannot interfere with that constitutional protection by simply saying regulation of that right promotes government interest. Instead, a state government has to show that their regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. In the court's opinion, it talks about applying historical traditions to modern day situations and the analogical reasoning that that requires. And the court says, quote, to be clear, analogical reasoning under the second amendment

is neither a regulatory straight jacket nor a regulatory blank check. On one hand, courts should not uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analog because doing so risks endorsing outliers that our ancestors would have never accepted. On the other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analog, not a historical twin. And the court goes on to say, consider, for example, Heller's discussion of long-standing laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th and 19th century sensitive places where weapons were altogether

prohibited, we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such provisions. We therefore can assume it's settled that these locations were sensitive places where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use these analogies to determine modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new sensitive places. So basically what the court is saying here is, look, we can find a way to apply because the current Supreme Court justices are, or I guess I should say the majority of them are originalists, right? They want to uphold the constitution in a way that sticks to the original intention of the constitution. And that's not always going to be the case. It really

depends on what justices you have on the court. But right now we're seeing an originalist perspective. So they're trying to uphold the constitution in a way that sticks to the original intent of the constitution. But they're still saying that, okay, yeah, we need to stick to what the original intent of the constitution. But they're still saying that, okay, yeah, we need to stick to what the original intent was, but we also understand that things need to change. We need to adapt in certain situations. So here they're saying, we can expand what sensitive places are, you know, given modern day situations, but do so in a way that's not something our ancestors would have never accepted. Okay. So New York sets forth the argument that these sensitive places includes all places where people typically congregate

and where law enforcement and other public safety professionals are presumptively available. And the court says, well, yeah, it's true that people sometimes congregate in sensitive places and that law enforcement professionals are usually available in sensitive places, but you can't expand the category of sensitive places simply to all places of public congregation. The court says that doing this would in effect exempt cities like Manhattan, for example, from the second amendment and would eviscerate the general right to carry arms for self-defense in cities like Manhattan. So basically the court is saying this nation's tradition is important and we realize that things change over time and that we have to adapt,

but we have to adapt in a way that our predecessors would have wanted us to adapt. So when this case was all said and done, New York's proper cause requirement was said to violate that 14th Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. But one of the things that New York took away from this case was that it could identify sensitive places, and it could restrict gun carrying in those places. Historically, these sensitive places consisted of government buildings, courthouses, legislative sessions, but now New York has added a few to the list in an

effort to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling, but still maintain gun control. Specifically, gunsafety.ny.gov, a new gun safety website created by the state of New York, reads, quote, On July 1st, 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed landmark legislation to strengthen New York quote, amended New York State penal law by adding a comprehensive list of what the new law defines as sensitive locations where the possession of firearms, rifles, or shotguns is prohibited. The new law also makes it a class E felony to possess a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in those sensitive places, end quote. And per usual, you can find this link on my website on this episode's webpage, and you can see the list of sensitive locations for yourself. There are roughly 20 categories or subsections of sensitive locations, which include places like government buildings, locations providing health

services, places of worship, libraries, playgrounds, parks, schools, etc. And then the last subsection specifically names Times Square. The revision also exempts certain people like police officers and even retired police officers, military personnel, certain security guards, government employees, etc. So they can carry guns in these sensitive locations, but the average citizen cannot. Now, the punishment for carrying a weapon in one of these areas, like I said, is a Class E felony, which is actually New York's lowest felony charge. And if jail time is even given, the sentence will range anywhere from two to five years in jail, depending on the circumstances. In addition to creating sensitive places, the law also set forth new application requirements for a concealed carry permit since the proper cause standard had to go as per the Supreme Court.

So now applicants have to complete 16 hours of classroom training and two hours of live fire exercises. Applicants also have to provide a list of social media accounts for the past three years as part of a character and conduct review. Monroe County Sheriff Todd Baxter said it currently takes two to four hours to perform a pistol permit background check on a clean candidate. But the new law adds another one to three hours for each permit. The county has about 600 pending pistol permits, so the sheriff says this new law is going to slow everything down. Now, obviously, there are people that are happy about the new laws, and then there are people that are not so happy. There are a couple things I thought about as I was researching, and I kind of want to get your guys' thoughts on them. So first, do you think classifying certain places as sensitive

could pose a risk to the public? Because, you know, you always hear people saying gun control won't control the criminals, or gun control won't control the bad guys. And the criminals will always find a way. So if the bad guys know they have more of an opportunity in a place like Times Square knowing the ordinary citizen won't have a gun on them to protect themselves? And Times Square, okay, you have law enforcement, you have police officers, you have security in Times Square. So maybe not necessarily Times Square, but take Central Park as an example, right? If someone knows that the ordinary citizen isn't going to have protection on them even if they have a license do you think that that incentivizes bad guys more or perhaps you don't agree but you know historically places like government buildings

and airports are obviously known to be gun-free areas, but at least those places have security. So everyone, when you walk into an airport or a government building, you have to walk through a metal detector upon entry, right? You can't just bring a gun in there. But places like Central Park or even Times Square or whatever, it's just kind of free reign. You're not, you know, you're not being checked walking into the entrance to Central Park or walking into Times Square. So do you feel that that could be a dangerous implication of these new laws? And the other thing I thought about was regarding the social media background check. I mean, the facts and statistics show that a portion of shooters in the United States had

posted on their social media accounts about gun violence prior to carrying out a shooting. So yeah, it may add more time to the processing time of applications or it might slow things down for state officials. But is that a downside we as a country should be willing to deal with? So those are just a couple of the things that ran across my mind that I wanted to get your guys's thoughts on. So make sure you leave a comment on my website so we can all discuss this. And as always, you can find my sources for this story and my other stories on my website on this episode's description page. Everything is in one place. So you find your sources there, you'll find the comments there, you'll find the episode format there. Everything is on that one webpage for this episode. So let's now move on to the Kansas school teacher that settled a lawsuit against her school district for $95,000 lawsuit over the use of students' preferred pronouns.

On Thursday, September 1st, the Greary County School District in Kansas settled a lawsuit with retired school teacher Pamela Ricard. The lawsuit started when Ricard, a math teacher at Fort Riley Middle School, refused to use two students' preferred names and pronouns. The first incident occurred in March 2021, and in response, the principal sent an email to all teachers at the school that read, quote, when we have a student that requests to go by a preferred name that is different than their given name, our district honors the request. Once you are aware of a preferred name, use that name for the student, end quote. After that, Ricard was allegedly told multiple times to use the student's preferred names and pronouns, but refused to do so. Then in April 2021, Ricard received a three-day suspension with pay for her violations.

Following this suspension, the school sent out a document titled Use of Preferred Names and Pronouns. The document asked staff members to share the student's request with administrators or counselors and respect the student's chosen pronouns. Then in September 2021, the school board adopted in addition to the district's diversity and inclusion policy, saying that teachers and staff were to use a student's preferred pronouns when speaking to a student and use the student's legal name when speaking to the student's parents. According to the court record, Ricard is a Christian who believes God creates each person as male and female, that these two distinct complementary sexes reflect the image of God, and rejection of one's biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person. She believes that there are only two anatomical sexes, except in very rare scientifically

demonstrable medical circumstances. Ricard believes that referring to children with pronouns inconsistent with biological sex is harmful because it is untrue. She also believes that the Bible prohibits dishonesty and lying, and that parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their children. During the 2020-2021 school year, there were two students in ricard's class that were biological females and enrolled in the district's record system under their legal first and last names with their biological sexes both students requested to go by names that were different than their legal names and pronouns inconsistent with their biological sex that was the school year

during which those violations happened that I just discussed a couple of minutes ago. But then at the time of the lawsuit, Ricard had two new transgender students in her class. One student told Ricard of a preferred name and pronoun in fall 2021. The other told Ricard in March 2022 of their preferred name and pronoun. Ricard referred to both students by their preferred first names, but avoided using their preferred pronouns to be consistent with her religious beliefs. However, she would occasionally use pronouns when referring to the students in class. On one occasion, Ricard had to email the parents of one transgender student regarding the student's performance in class. Because the student had not authorized the district to disclose the student's

transgender status to the parents, Ricard had to use the student's legal name and biological pronouns in the email despite using the student's preferred name and preferred pronouns in school. Ricard says addressing students one way at school and another way when speaking to their parents is dishonest and violates her religious beliefs. Ricard sought a religious exemption from the district's policy, but was denied. At this point, Ricard had a lawyer propose another policy to the school board that would allow teachers to uniformly address students by their enrolled names. This policy was rejected. Ricard then filed suit against the

school district superintendent, the board members, and the principal, arguing that denying her request to use the student's legal name and pronouns deprived her of due process and equal protection of law and violated her first amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion. Ricard told CNN in an email that she continues to enjoy teaching her students day in and day out. This email was before she retired, but after the lawsuit was filed. But she says the stigma of being officially labeled a bully for simply using a student's enrolled last name has been disheartening. She says she loves all of her students but shouldn't be forced to contradict her core beliefs in order to teach math in a public

school. In the lawsuit, she said that not using a student's preferred pronouns does not interfere with the efficient functioning of a school or create a hostile learning environment. LGBTQ plus organizations see it differently though. Joel Baum, senior director of the non-profit Gender Spectrum, says, quote, We know from long-term, very powerful research that affirming a young person's gender leads to better health and well-being. This is about basic rights and dignity of a human being. Your beliefs do not allow you to refuse to acknowledge who a student is, end quote. By the same token, Melanie Willingham Jaggers,

executive director of GLSEN, a national organization supporting LGBTQ plus students and educators, said, quote, transgender youth are more likely to consider suicide than their peers and experience other mental health crises, which are exacerbated when they face this kind of stigma in the classroom. According to GLSEN research, more than 40% of transgender students in Kansas report being unable to use their chosen name and correct pronouns in school. In April of this year, Ricard's attorneys filed a motion to essentially halt enforcement of both components of the district policy, the preferred names and pronouns policy, which required Ricard to use the student's preferred name and pronouns, and the communication

with parents policy, which prohibited Ricard from using the student's preferred name and pronouns, and the communication with parents policy, which prohibited Ricard from using the student's preferred name and pronouns when talking to the student's parents. Specifically, Ricard was seeking injunctive relief from these policies. Injunctive relief, for those that aren't familiar, is when a court orders a party to stop doing something, either temporarily or permanently. And in order to prove injunctive relief should be granted, the plaintiff in Kansas specifically must show the likelihood of success on the merits, meaning she's likely to be successful on her claim, irreparable harm, so damage, a balancing of the harms to the parties weighs in favor of the plaintiff, and that the public interest favors the injunction. So keeping that in mind, the court

heard arguments from both sides on May 6th and made its decision a few days later on May 9th by and through a court order. And this order, by the way, is on my website in the sources, so you can read it for yourself. But the order denied injunctive relief regarding the preferred names and pronouns policy, but granted injunctive relief regarding the communication with parents policy. So in simpler terms, the order said that the preferred names and pronouns policy could be enforced, but that the communication with parents policy couldn't. So let's talk about the first policy first, the preferred names and pronouns policy. When it came time to argue in court, the district represented at the hearing that an employee is not required to use preferred

pronouns and may refer to students only by their preferred first name. Ricard didn't have an issue with this. She testified at the hearing that she has been and is willing to continue referring to all students by their preferred first names and not their preferred pronouns. So the court found that because both parties were in agreement, and because referring to the student by their preferred first name doesn't constitute a violation of the district's policy, there was no harm and therefore no need for injunctive relief. Because remember, irreparable harm is a requirement for injunctive relief. So that was the first policy. Now let's move on to the second policy, communication with parents

policy. This policy prohibited employees from revealing to parents that a student has requested the use of a preferred name or set or different set of pronouns at school unless the student requests the administration to do so. So again, Ricard is saying that this policy to violates her free speech and free exercise rights under the First Amendment and her due process rights under the 14th Amendment. In deciding whether to grant the injunctive relief, the court ran through those factors that it had to consider, the ones we just talked about. The first being Ricard's likelihood of success on the merits. So when the court was looking at Ricard's claim, she had to determine whether or not Ricard was likely to succeed. And the court noted that the fundamental principle of the free exercise clause is that the government commit itself to religious tolerance. And under this principle, government laws and rules that burden religious exercise are presumptively unconstitutional,

unless the rules are both neutral and generally applicable. If a rule that burdens religious exercise is not neutral and generally applicable, it will only survive a constitutional challenge if the government, or in this case, the school district, can demonstrate interests of the highest order and that the ruling question is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. So to break that down and make it really simple, essentially the first step is for the court to determine whether a rule burdens the exercise of religion. If it doesn't, there's no issue. But if it does, then the government has to determine whether the rule is both neutral and generally applicable.

If it is, no issue. But if it's not, then the only way for that rule to survive a constitutional challenge is for the school district to show that their interests are so important and that this rule is the only way to protect that interest. Here, Ricard was able to show that the rule did burden her exercise of religion because the Bible prohibits dishonesty and lying, and that according to her, the policy is encouraging a form of dishonesty, concealment, and omission by having to use one name when talking to the parents and another name when talking to the student. The district countered that argument by saying the policy doesn't require Ricard to use any name or pronoun in conversation with the parents,

and that Ricard can just say your student or your child and avoid names or pronouns completely. But the court says, no, that's unrealistic. Such a system would be impossible to comply with, and when a teacher slipped up, he or she could face discipline. The court ultimately agreed that yes, this policy does burden Ricard's religious rights, and because of that, they moved on to step number two in the analysis, which was to determine whether the policy was neutral and generally applicable. The court found that the policy was not generally applicable because, among other reasons, the district had created multiple exceptions for other instances but was unwilling

to create an exception for Ricard's religious reasons. So since it wasn't generally applicable, the last step was to determine whether the district could demonstrate that the policy was justified by interests of the highest order, also known as compelling interests, demonstrate that the policy was justified by interests of the highest order, also known as compelling interests, and that the policy at issue is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. So in figuring out what the district's interest was and whether or not the policy was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, precedent said that the interest the court was to consider was the genuine interest at the time the policy was adopted.

So the school district could not present a new interest to the court at the time of the lawsuit. They had to go off of the genuine interest at the time the policy was adopted. And when the policy was adopted in 2021, the district sent out an email. And in that email, the district told parents that the reason for the policy was to comply with FERPA, which stands for the Family Educational Rights

and Privacy Act. But the problem, according to the court, was that FERPA does not prohibit the district from communicating with parents about their minor child's preferred name and pronouns. In fact, FERPA is the law that specifically empowers parents to receive information about their minor students. So the court said that the district could not have had a legitimate compelling interest in withholding information based on FERPA when FERPA in fact required the district to disclose the very information at issue. So the court denies a preliminary injunction on the preferred name and pronouns policy, but grants the injunction on the communication with parents policy. Once this order was entered, the district realized it was probably in their best interest to settle,

since the judge had already determined Ricard was likely to prevail. So the district rescinded the communication with parents policy and settled with Ricard for $95,000 and called it a day. So that is what happened in that case. Again, super curious to hear your thoughts on this, so let me know on my website. The fourth topic of the day is the U.S. approving a potential $1.1 billion Taiwan arms sale. On Friday, the U.S. State Department approved a potential $1.1 billion sale of military equipment to Taiwan. This potential sale has left China feeling pretty unhappy. The proposed deal includes a $655 million radar system to track incoming missiles and $355 million worth of harpoon missiles

capable of sinking ships. It also includes surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles worth $85.6 million. So it's technically three separate sales, but together the three sales total $1.1 billion. The Pentagon announced the deal on Friday in the wake of China's aggressive military drills around Taiwan following a visit to the island last month by Nancy Pelosi. China claims Taiwan as its own territory and has never ruled out using force to bring the democratically ruled island under its control. Taiwan, though, says the People's Republic of China has never ruled the island and has no right to claim it. Apparently, China did not appreciate the visit by Nancy Pelosi and felt a little bit threatened.

After all, Nancy Pelosi was the highest ranking U.S. official to visit Taiwan in 25 years. Following her visit, China carried out military exercises around the island of Taiwan and promised to continue to monitor and patrol the Taiwan Strait and be prepared for conflict. The potential sale to Taiwan signals the United States' support of Taiwan, despite pressure from China, and falls in line with the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which the U.S. pledges to provide support to help Taiwan defend itself but does not commit to direct involvement in armed conflict. Keep in mind, this is not the first time the United States has sold weapons to Taiwan. Just in October 2020, when former President Trump was in office, the U.S. sold $2.4 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan. And since 2010, the U.S. has announced more than

$23 billion in arms sales to Taiwan. The reason the sale is making news now is because one, it's the largest arms sale since President Biden took office, and two, because of the rising tensions with China. Laura Rosenberger, White House Senior Director for China and Taiwan, said in a statement, as the PRC, People's Republic of China, continues to increase pressure on Taiwan, including through heightened military air and maritime presence around Taiwan, and engages in attempts to change the status quo of the Taiwan Strait, we are providing Taiwan with what it needs to maintain its self-defense capabilities. A spokesperson for the Department of State said the deal was essential for Taiwan's security and

called on Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic, and economic pressure against Taiwan and instead engage in meaningful dialogue. The Chinese embassy in Washington called on the U.S. to revoke the deal or face countermeasures. So yeah, safe to say China is not thrilled. Although the sale isn't final until it passes Congress, both Democratic and Republican congressional aides said that they do not expect opposition, so it is likely to move forward. And speaking of Congress's approval, let's move on to the fifth and final story, which is that the White House is asking Congress for $47.1 billion in emergency funding to cover expected costs for Ukraine, COVID-19, monkeypox, and natural disasters. Nearly half of that amount, so nearly half of the $47 billion,

so roughly $22 billion, would be specifically for COVID funding and would go towards stockpiling vaccines and tests, as well as research and development and the global vaccine response. The White House originally asked for this funding back in March, but Republicans pushed back on it, and due to the pushback, the White House allegedly had to reprogram some funding and pause a program that sent out free at-home test kits because they didn't have enough funding, supposedly. So 11.7 of that 47.1 billion would go towards military-related costs and direct economic support for Ukraine. Four and a half billion would go towards monkeypox, specifically vaccinations, testing, and treatment. And $6.5 billion would go towards disaster

response, like helping with the cost for the recent flooding in Kentucky. The administration hopes the funding request will become part of an upcoming short-term spending bill aimed at funding the federal government beyond September 30th when the current spending package is set to expire. If a stopgap spending bill isn't passed by midnight on September 30th, we could see a partial government shutdown. So we will see what happens with that. And that completes our week in review. I hope you thoroughly enjoyed this episode. If you did, please take a few seconds to leave me a five star review don't forget to leave a comment on jordanismylawyer.com and share your thoughts so

we can talk through some of these stories a bit more thank you for tuning in to another monday on the jordan is my lawyer podcast where I break down the news stories of the previous week in an unbiased fact-based manner so you can form your own opinions without any outside noise don't forget to tune in tomorrow for an all new true crime episode, and I will talk to you guys then.