Loading summary
Transcript32 lines
- [00:01]
Audi Q3 Commercial Voice
Picture this. A curve in the road, a change in plans. Well, what do you say with the all new Audi Q3? The answer's always yes. Yes to adventure, yes to escape, yes to performance, yes to comfort. Yes to right now. Because saying yes without hesitation, that's real luxury. The all new Audi Q3 made for the yes life.
- [00:31]
Jonathan Fields
Hi, this is Jonathan Fields, host of the Good Life project. What if your home could welcome you at the door, energize your kitchen and calm your bedroom all automatically? With Pura's family of smart diffusers, you can send every space perfectly, choose premium clean fragrances, adjust the intensity and set schedules right from your phone. It's whole home scenting, designed for the way you live. Build your Pura system today@pura.com wholehome.
- [00:59]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
Scaling a business takes the right expertise at the right time. Upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level. One of the biggest growth hacks is realizing you don't have to do it all yourself. Upwork makes it easy to bring in the right freelancer when you need them so you can stay focused on what you do best. Upwork is a one stop platform to find, hire and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations and more. With Business plus, you can access the top 1% of talent on Upwork. And with AI powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under six hours. No endless searching required. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's Upwork.com Upwork.com.
- [02:00]
Audrey Moorhead
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. This is Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead and it's my favorite time of the political year. The end of the Supreme Court's term when the Court releases its final and often most consequential opinions in batches. Today I'm writing about an under the radar case the Tangle team has been watching really closely. A decision on whether a Louisiana Rastafarian man could sue prison guards for violating his religious liberties by cutting off his dreadlocks. Then read on for a deeper dive into a 1990 Supreme Court decision on whether states can regulate religious conduct, an investigation into AI chatbot ideological bias, and our roundup of the stories we didn't cover. I hope you're excited for today's edition, and with that, I'll pass it off to John.
- [03:12]
John Law
Thanks, Audrey, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, The Supreme Court ruled 6:3 that the Trump administration can remove temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, allowing them to be deported. In a separate 6? 3 decision, the court ruled that the administration can turn away asylum seekers before they cross the southern border into the United States. Number two, 7.2 magnitude and 7.5 magnitude earthquakes struck Caracas, Venezuela, killing at least 164 people and injuring 971 as of Thursday morning. The death toll is expected to rise as the emergency response continues. Number three the Commerce Department reported that the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index rose 4.1% on an annual basis in May, the highest rate increase since April 2023, while core inflation, excluding food and energy prices, rose 3.4%. Inflation rose 0.4% on a monthly basis. 4 the Trump administration requested $87.6 billion in supplemental funding from Congress prim costs related to the Iran war. 5. A federal judge blocked most provisions in President Donald Trump's executive order on elections issued in March 2025, including one measure that would have created a proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration for violating state and congressional election authority. And number six, Postmaster General David Steiner testified at a Senate committee hearing that under a proposed Trump administration rule, the postal Service will not deliver mail in ballots in states that do not share voter data with the federal government.
- [04:59]
Narrator (Supreme Court Case Summary)
The Supreme Court has rejected a former Louisiana inmate's effort to sue state prison officials after they forcibly shaved his dreadlocks in violation, he says, of his religious beliefs. In a 6? 3 vote divided right along ideological lines, the justices ruled that Damon Landor could not sue the individual officers responsible for doing this. The underlying incident took place back in 2020, when Lander said that his dreadlocks were protected under a federal religious freedom law. According to his lawsuit, two guards then handcuffed him to a chair and proceeded to shave his head.
- [05:31]
John Law
On Tuesday, The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that federal law protecting prisoners religious exercise does not extend to a lawsuit brought by an incarcerated Rastafarian man who sought damages after prison officials forcibly shaved his head. The man, Damon Lander, sued both the Louisiana Department of Corrections and several of its officers individually under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act, which defines the religious rights of people held in institutions that receive federal funding. However, the court's majority found that the law does not apply to the prison officials named in the suit, and they had not entered into a formal agreement with the federal government. For context, in 2020, Lander was transferred to Raymond Laborde Correctional center in Louisiana, where, while serving a five month sentence for drug possession as a member of Rastafari, a religion originating in Jamaica in which maintaining dreadlocks fulfills a religious vow, Lander determined never to cut his hair. However, prison guards attempted to shave his head upon arrival at the new facility. He protested and showed a prison guard a copy of an appellate court decision holding that Arluipa prohibited the prison from removing his dreadlocks. He was eventually handcuffed and shaved after officials dismissed his complaints. Afterward, he filed a suit seeking monetary damages from the Department of Corrections and prison officials. A district court and the U.S. court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dismissed the claims against the department itself and ruled against Lander. But the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in June 2025. Oral arguments were held in November. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that Arluipa does not apply to individual prison officials, as they had not entered any agreement with the federal government and knowingly consented to answer private suits under Arluipa. Gorsuch suggested that allowing Lander's claim to proceed would give Congress effectively unbridled police power, as it could regulate a private individual's conduct if they received pay from a recipient of federal funds. Mr. Lander's case cannot proceed against them any more than a breach of contract action might proceed against a defendant who never formed a contract, gorsuch said. The court's three Democratic appointed justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, neither respondents nor the court can test Congress power to impose our Luipa's substantive directive accommodating religious freedom. But the majority adopts a peculiar position that Congress is powerless to create and a state is powerless to accept the natural next step, a damages remedy against officials who violate that directive by insulating individuals from lawsuits even if they violate the law, she continued, the ruling ensures that prisoners like Lander who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons, no matter how blatant, will often be left remediless. Today, we'll share perspectives from the left and right on the decision, and then associate editor Audrey Moorhead will give her take.
- [08:19]
Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [08:24]
Quints Clothing Advertiser
Summer always changes how I get dressed. I want pieces that feel lighter and more breathable, things that are easy but still put together. That's why I keep coming back to Quints they focus on high quality essentials that feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton.
- [08:41]
John Law
Well made basics but without the luxury markup.
- [08:43]
Quints Clothing Advertiser
It's that rare balance where everything feels elevated but still effortless. Everything at Quint's is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and
- [08:55]
John Law
cut out the middleman.
- [08:56]
Quints Clothing Advertiser
So you're paying for quality and not brand markup. I've got a couple of quince linen shirts that I wear when I go out to the park with my daughter or even on a date night with my wife. And I'm always surprised at how many compliments I randomly get from people. It's really empowering.
- [09:11]
John Law
It actually makes me feel really great.
- [09:13]
Quints Clothing Advertiser
So do yourself a favor, get those compliments for yourself. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quint.com tangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com tangle for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com tangle
- [09:38]
Pablo Torre
hey, Pablo Torre here. As a sports journalist, I've covered global sports for many years now and there is one thing that I can promise you. Nothing compares to the World cup. And this time it is even better. Thanks to McDonald's you have the chance to take home one of nine legendary cups when you order the FIFA World cup meal. The Cups feature some of the biggest legends in football like David Beckham, Terry Henry and Ronaldinho, Christian Pulisic, Lamine Yamal and Alfonso Davies. Right now, get one of nine legendary cups when you order the FIFA World cup meal. Only at McDonald's at participating McDonald's only for a limited time while supplies last. All rights reserved. Copyright 2026. McDonald's at the FIFA World Cup 2026.
- [10:28]
John Law
All right, first, let's start with some agreement comment. Both sides agree that Lander's rights were violated and question whether existing law adequately protects religious liberties. Alright, let's move on to what the left is saying. The left criticizes the decision for undercutting religious liberty. Some suggest the current court only supports religious freedom for certain groups. Others say prisoners now have no pathway for recourse if their religious rights are violated. In Slate, Alexis Romero and Mark Joseph Stern called the decision a wrecking ball to a major religious liberty law. Throughout the opinion, the court analogized Congress spending power to a contract between the federal government and the states. To the majority, every detail of that contract must be knowingly consented to by all parties who might be affected, romero Owenstern said. But our LUIPA is legislation, not a contract. So, as Jackson wrote, it's doubtful that the Constitution actually requires this unrealistic level of contractual clarity. Moreover, the state officials in this case arguably did agree to be bound by federal law. After all, they signed an employment contract with a prison that receives federal funding by virtue of arluipa. State officials are trained on their inmates rights, and prison litigation has been around for centuries under ARLUIPA and other statutes. There's no serious argument that these state officials were blind to the consequences that might come from violating the rights of the prisoners they were in charge of, Romero and Stern said. When Lander tried to vindicate his rights, the Supreme Court didn't just refuse to recognize them. They took the opportunity to issue a sweeping change in constitutional law that risks hobbling a host of important, important federal protections in the nation. Elie Mistahl argued the Supreme Court loves religious freedom, just not for Rastafarians. Usually, the Supreme Court treats the Free Exercise clause as if it were written on a Dead Sea scroll. But this case raises the question of whether their religious tolerance extends to only the rights of Christians. Mistalra Indeed, the way the court squared its normally robust protection of religious freedom with its decision to allow Landers rights to be flagrantly violated was to pretend the case wasn't about religion at all. Gorsuch devotes all of one paragraph to the First Amendment violation at the heart of the case. Instead, he cast the whole thing as an examination of Congress's power under the spending Clause. Gorsuch argues that employees of institutions that accept federal funds have to agree to be sued under the ARLA WIPA before such lawsuits can proceed. Mistahl said. The entire structure of civil rights laws is based on the premise that receiving federal dollars makes you subject to federal rules and consequences. Gorsuch would throw that entire premise into the trash. In his world, you are only subject to federal civil rights laws if you personally agree to follow them. In Religion News Service, Elizabeth Reiner Platt said religious freedom depends on who you are. The opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, held that in order to be subject to suit, prison employees must voluntarily and knowingly consent to answer lawsuits under arluipa, something employees are unlikely to agree to, Platt wrote. Without any threat of financial punishment, employees of state jails and prisons can trample inmates religious rights with impunity. And while courts may still order prisons to accommodate incarcerated people's religious beliefs, such as being provided halal meals, this means little in cases like Landers when the damage has already been done. This non financial relief can be avoided as prisons frequently move incarcerated people between facilities to evade liability for rights violations. Lander himself was transferred between three different facilities in the course of six months, Platt said. Rather than being a deviation from the Supreme Court's broad view of religious liberty rights, Tuesday's Lander decision is part of a long standing pattern. While religious liberty claims have been brought and won by people from many different backgrounds and walks of life, including people in prison, the path is often far harder for those who face obstacles within our larger judicial system. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed with some saying this is an issue for Congress. Many say the case's result shows prisoners do not have the adequate legal remedies for religious freedom violations. Others argue that lenders religious rights were violated. The Wall Street Journal editorial board argued religious prisoners need Congress's help. Mr. Lander should have been protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act, but what recourse does he have now? No court can restore his hair. He can't sue Louisiana for damages because of sovereign immunity, so he wanted to sue the prison officials personally, the board wrote. Unfortunately for him, that lawsuit has a federalism problem. Under R Luipa, Justice Neil Gorsuch writes. State prison systems that take federal money must agree to not substantially burden religious exercise. Individual prison guards, however, must aren't a party to that bargain. That's if Congress doesn't act. To be sure, Justice Gorsuch says Mr. Lander and the dissent identify ways in which Congress could have lawfully imposed personal liability, the board said. Is it possible for lawmakers to find that kind of agreement? Our luipa passed in 2000 by unanimous consent. But in these polarized days, Democrats often treat religious liberty as if it's code for right wing agenda. Mr. Lander's case is evidence. It isn't, and Congress can act for religious prisoners of all faiths. In the Daily Signal, Culley Stimson and Helen Wen suggested the case was decided by a narrow legal question. The issue in the case that made its way to the Supreme Court wasn't whether the officer's conduct was outrageous. It was, Stimson and Wen wrote. The narrow legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether appropriate relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act may include money damages in suits against government officials in their individual capacity. In this case, the Louisiana's Department of Corrections accepted federal funding and agreed to comply with R. Luipa's requirements, but the individual correctional officers employed by LDOC did not. Because Congress lacks a general power to regulate individuals through the Spending Clause, the court concluded that personal liability may be imposed only on parties who knowingly and voluntarily consent to the conditions attached to federal funds, Stimson and Wen said. The dissent said the majority magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed by binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized. As a result, prison officials will have little incentive to accommodate the free exercise rights of prisoners, knowing full well that if they violate the law, they won't be held personally liable. In the National Catholic Register, Andrea Pachati Bear said the prison officials shouldn't be able to walk away with no consequences. It is worth setting aside at the outset a concern that opening the courthouse doors to prisoners on religious liberty claims would flood federal courts with frivolous lawsuits. It would not, pachati Bear wrote. Arluipa does not give prisoners the right to ignore prison rules. Officials may restrict or burden religious practice when they can show a compelling reason and when they use the least intrusive means to achieve it. Under the Prison Litigation Reform act, any prisoner who wants to sue in federal court must first exhaust every available grievance procedure within the prison system. That requirement alone screens out a large share of potential claims before a judge ever sees them. So the court was never asked to give prisoners a blank check. It was asked something narrower. When an official disregards the law, can he be held personally responsible? Under today's ruling, the answer is no, chatty Bear said. Congress responded to a 1990 decision that weakened the free exercise clause by passing our LUIPA to provide a shield to religious liberties of prisoners. Today's opinion confirms that that shield lacks a corresponding sword when it comes to holding individual officials accountable. All right, let's head over to Audrey for her take.
- [18:19]
Audrey Moorhead
Thanks, John. All right, everybody, I am back for my take. This case has been a genuine head scratcher for me since I first started following it in October. At first glance, it seemed like a typical religious liberties case. A citizen's rights were most likely violated. But a lack of clarity in the law brought him before the Supreme Court to litigate the minutiae. But the issues at play actually go far deeper. I do want to lay out the one indisputable fact. Damon Lander suffered an unconscionable and, more importantly in matters of the law, unconstitutional violation of his religious liberties. For months, Lander had been serving prison time for his crimes, which restricted most of his personal freedoms while protecting his rights, including the right to religious observance. Two government facilities honored those rights without incident before his final prison transfer, with only three weeks left on his sentence close enough to freedom to taste it. Then, despite his best efforts to invoke his constitutional and, as he argued, statutory rights, he was forcibly restrained and those rights were violated and that violation was fundamentally irremediable. No matter how much the law is on Lander's side, the State of Louisiana could not Grow Lander's Hair back I'm disturbed by basically every detail of his story, but for some reason I've been especially stuck on the fact that his hair was cut very near the end of his prison sentence. The timing doesn't make the act any more or less wrong, of course, but I can't help but imagine how being so close to the end of his sentence would sharpen the sting. I don't think anyone who hears the story could honestly say that Lander didn't suffer a grievous injury under the law. I also don't think anyone could say that Lander's case is a one off. This sort of discrimination could happen to anyone with sincerely held religious beliefs, though the danger is certainly greater for people like Lander. The Rastafari movement in the US is small and ethnically concentrated, leaving people more prone to misunderstanding or disregarding their beliefs. I think most people would say the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act, or rluipa, was practically designed for people like Lander to have some recourse, and at first I assumed the court would decide unanimously or nearly so in his favor. Our LUIPA is, after all, supposed to give citizens who have their religious liberties violated the ability to sue for redress. But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that Lander could not sue the prison guards who personally cut off his hair. In Justice Neil Gorsuch's view, writing for the majority, the spending clause of the Constitution limits the law's application. When Congress attaches strings to federal funding, like telling states they must recognize religious rights and agree to answer lawsuits from individuals in order to receive that funding, the federal government creates a contract between itself and the states. But Congress didn't create a contract with each individual state employee, meaning those employees have not given their voluntary and knowing consent to the law's requirement that they answer lawsuits. In this case, therefore, Gorsuch argues that our LUIPA doesn't provide Lander with a method to seek redress from state employees on first reading, Gorsuch's constitutional logic basically made sense to me, even if it really grates against my religious freedom principles. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's emphatic dissent threw a wrench in the gears. Jackson argues that the majority's reasoning, and particularly Gorsuch's contract analogy, doesn't hold up. Instead, it separates rights and remedies through a sleight of hand. Jackson argues that ARLUIPA gives Lander the ability to sue the guards for monetary damages, a question that Gorsuch said the Court didn't need to answer directly yet simply because the Court has already interpreted the Religious Freedom Restoration act, or rfra, which it has long read as a sister law to R. Luipa, to allow for monetary damages. Furthermore, Lander should be able to sue the guards because Congress intended for his cause of action the facts or events on which he can sue to be valid under the law. And anyway, the law was no secret, so prison guards should be expected to abide by it even if they don't formally enter into a contract. Thus, in this apparent religious freedom case, the difference between Gorsuch and Jackson isn't over Lander's religious rights and guarantees. It's over federalism and congressional power. Gorsuch argues that allowing lawsuits against state employees without formal contracts under the spending clause would massively expand Congress's regulatory power over individual behavior. Jackson retorts that Congress already has that power. The fundamental split here is between their vastly different views of the limits of Congress's authority under the Constitution, a difference consistent with the rest of their jurisprudence. I thought Supreme Court expert Sarah Isger put it well. Gorsuch and the majority are typically more concerned with limiting federal power, while Jackson and the dissenters are typically more concerned with enhancing citizens power to seek redress against the government. Having said all of that, I'll deliver my honest take. I am not sure who's right. I'm a sucker for generalizable principles of law. So Gorsuch's argument for unilaterally treating spending Clause power as an affair of contracts and consent is appealing to me. It's a broad principle that could apply to more laws than just our luipa, and it could protect state employees from being made to behave in discordance with their personal beliefs by an act of Congress. I imagine that's why Gorsuch reached for culture war examples as potential threats of congressional overreach. On the other hand, I'm solidly with Jackson that citizens like Lander should be able to seek some sort of recourse for their rights violations, and she certainly made a strong case for court precedent. Being on her side. Being evenly split between their arguments has given me a strange detachment from the case. I find myself in the position of accepting the result basically neutrally and thinking instead about how redress for religious liberty's violations can move forward. It truly frustrates me that Damon Lander himself remains without recourse. But to its credit, the Court did give Congress a roadmap to ensure that future citizens in Lander's position can get justice for the violations of their rights. Congress could require individual agents to enter into contracts with the federal government, or it could require states to enact their own laws, guaranteeing the ability to seek redress. In either case, the Roberts Court seems to be continuing its established trend of asking Congress to do a better job of making laws. I sincerely hope that Congress takes it up on the challenge. That's it for my take. I'll pass it off to Executive Editor Isaac Sal for a staff dissent. Thanks so much for listening.
- [24:36]
Isaac Saul
Thanks, Audrey. Isaac here with my dissent today. To draw an imperfect analogy, imagine that Tangle were to receive federal funds from the government, and a condition of those funds was that we follow federal copyright laws. If an editor on my team was caught violating a copyright infringement law, it strikes me as rather absurd to say that employee has not consented to being liable for copyright law. Only Tangle Media LLC has if the person whose intellectual property we stole was trying to sue my employee. But somehow the outcome across these court rulings produced a situation where they can't sue the employee, me or Tangle. We'd all feel that something had broken along the way. The idea that prison guards have not issued voluntary and knowing consent to be sued if they violate the rights of prisoners feels even more fraught. What would constitute such consent more than signing an employee contract to work as a guard in a federally funded prison? One almost has to believe the inverse that the guards didn't know violating the rights of the prisoner in their care could lead to them being sued. This is fanciful stuff, and I find the court's conclusion both enraging and to be an intentional distortion of the Constitution in order to further limit congressional spending power, the religious freedoms of Lander be damned. We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [26:16]
Pablo Torre
Hey, Pablo Torre here. As a sports journalist, I've covered global sports for many years now, and there is one thing that I can promise you. Nothing compares to the World cup. And this time it is even better. Thanks to McDonald's, you have the chance to take home one of nine legendary cups when you order the FIFA World cup meal. The cups feature some of the biggest legends in football like David Beckham, Terry Henry and Ronaldinho, Christian Pulisic, Lamine Yamal and Alphonso Davies. Right now, get one of nine legendary Cups when you order the FIFA World cup meal only at McDonald's at participating McDonald's only for a limited time while supplies last. All rights reserved. Copyright 2026 McDonald's at the FIFA World
- [26:56]
Grow Therapy Advertiser
Cup 2026 the pressure to have a summer worth posting about is real. So is financial stress, social exhaustion and the anxiety that sneaks in right when things are supposed to feel good. Grow Therapy can help with that. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th, grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. They connect you with thousands of independent, licensed therapists across the US Offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growtherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
- [28:08]
John Law
And now for a deeper look. In 1990, the Supreme Court sided with the State of Oregon after it denied unemployment benefits to two men who were fired for ingesting peyote, a hallucinogen they said was part of Native American religious ceremonies. The decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, which held that laws could burden religious expression without violating the First Amendment so long as they were neutral and generally applicable, was widely considered one of the most severe blows to religious liberties in modern US History. In response, with broad and bipartisan support, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration act three years later, restoring stronger protections for religious exercise across all levels of government. However, this restoration of the pre Smith standard didn't last long. In 1997, four years after the RFRA's passage, the Supreme Court significantly weakened the law. In City of Bourne v. Flores, SCOTUS ruled that the RFRA could not be applied to state and local governments, which make decisions concerning common sites of religious expression, like state prisons and public schools. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act, the statute at the heart of Lander, was born out of this second setback. Using Congress's power of the purse to forbid states that receive federal funds from substantially burdening religious exercise in land use disputes and institutional settings, rounding out a turbulent decade for religious liberty protections. Arluipa unanimously passed the House and Senate by voice vote in 2000, and on September 22, President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
- [29:36]
Audrey Moorhead
Foreign.
- [29:42]
John Law
Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. On Wednesday, the Washington Post published results from an experiment it ran to test the biases of popular artificial intelligence chatbots, finding that most models appeared to be biased towards the left. Researchers tested the bots such as OpenAI's ChatGPT Anthropics, Claude Xai's Grok, and Google's Gemini with a series of political questions and with personalization settings turned off. Then a Washington Post reporter analyzed their responses for pronouncing left and right leaning views or both. Researchers determined 80% of ChatGPT's responses were exclusively left leaning, with just 3% biased to the right. Claude's responses were 43% left leaning, with 0% rated as solely right leaning, Grok was 40% left and 33% right, and Gemini scored as the most balanced, with 93% of responses considering both sides. The Washington Post has this story and you can check it out with a link in today's Episode Description. In this week's the Road Not Taken, our editorial team had close to unanimous decisions on what to cover this week. The Democratic Socialist candidates on Tuesday, the housing bill on Wednesday, and today's Supreme Court dreadlock's case were all decisions that we arrived at naturally based on the robust commentary we found for each topic. The court's ruling in an Immigration and Nationality act case and Keir Starmer's resignation, and came close behind our top picks. And you can keep an eye out on our YouTube channel for a video that we're going to be doing about Starmer in the coming weeks. That brings us to Monday, which was a choice between two topics we were reluctant to the Iran war and the Reflecting Pool. While updates on US Iran negotiations are obviously important, we had already covered this conflict twice the week before, leading us to focus our commentary on Vice President J.D. vance's role in peace talks. As for the Reflecting Pool, which dominated commentary over the weekend, the we balked at providing in depth commentary to an issue so shallow, excuse the pun. Our compromise was a short segment to lead off our latest episode of Suspension of the Rules, which you can check out on our YouTube channel and your favorite podcast platforms. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. The Galapagos Islands have no post office. Instead, they have a wooden barrel on the island of Floriana where visitors leave mail and strangers carry it home to hand deliver, a system 18th century whalers invented and nobody ever stopped using. In May, a man named Hugh knocked on Peter Klist's door in Petersfield, England, handed him a postcard written in Spanish and left. It turned out to be from a former student of Clist's sent from the barrel to her old class. One traveler, so moved by the tradition, returned to Floriana the following year, collected 55 pieces of mail and delivered every one. Usually people were initially confused, he wrote, but that would turn to complete joy as they read their letter. Upworthy has the story and you can check it out with a link in today's episode Description alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. As was mentioned at the top, we've got a new episode of Suspension of the Rules where the team wades into the the wider implications of Zoram Mamdani's king making in New York City, the controversy surrounding Tulsi Gabbard's supposed association with a cult leader, and a debate about whether Tara Palmieri should have published an interview excerpt a congresswoman asked her to remove It's a lively and engaging episode and I highly encourage you to go watch it on YouTube where you might see me accidentally show up on camera. A little embarrassing, but pretty funny. We'll be back in your ears next week. For Isaac, Audrey and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely wonderful weekend, y'.
- [33:20]
Clio Advertiser
All.
- [33:22]
John Law
Peace.
- [33:23]
Isaac Saul
Our Executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kbach and Associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey. Saw. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.
- [34:02]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's Name your price tool for years. Now. With the Name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state
- [34:31]
Pablo Torre
law hey Pablo Torre here. As a sports journalist, I've covered global sports for many years now and there is one thing that I can promise you. Nothing compares to the World cup and this time it is even better. Thanks to McDonald's, you have the chance to take home one of nine legendary cups when you order the FIFA World cup meal. The cups feature some of the biggest legends in football like David Beckham, Terry Henry and Ronaldinho, Christian Pulisic, Lamine Yamal and Alphonso Davies. Right now, get one of nine Legendary Cups when you order the FIFA World cup meal. Only at McDonald's at participating McDonald's only for a limited time while supplies last. All rights reserved. Copyright 2026. McDonald's at the FIFA World Cup 2026
- [35:14]
Clio Advertiser
ever been at the checkout wishing you had more cash to spend? You're watching the total climb, doing mental math, getting ready to put your favorite yogurt back. It's the worst. Clio lets you access an up to $250 cash advance fast so you can cover your groceries without the panic. No interest, no credit checks, just simple flexible repayment. Get up to $250 with Clio and keep grocery shopping stress free.
- [35:41]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
Depending on eligibility, you can get up to a $250 cash advance.
- [35:45]
John Law
Terms and conditions apply.