10.6.25 Key Supreme Court cases in the new term, government shutdown and the labor market, and Jane Goodall’s life mission

Summary

Podcast Summary: The World and Everything In It – October 6, 2025

Episode: 10.6.25 – Key Supreme Court Cases in the New Term, Government Shutdown and the Labor Market, & Jane Goodall’s Life Mission
Hosts: Nick Eicher, Mary Reichardt (with reporting by Jenny Ruff, Steve West, Emma Eicher; guests including David Bonson, Casey Luskin)

---

Overview

This episode ushers in the U.S. Supreme Court’s new term, previewing high-profile cases that could impact religious liberty, presidential power, free speech, women’s sports, campaign finance, and immigration. It also discusses the ongoing government shutdown’s economic effects and reflects on the legacy of primatologist Jane Goodall.

---

Supreme Court: Major Cases in the New Term

(Legal Docket segment starts at 05:41)

Religious Liberty in Prisons: Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections

• Case summary: Damon Landor, a Rastafari inmate, had his dreadlocks (grown under a religious vow) forcibly cut by prison officials, raising questions under RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act).
• Key issue: Whether individual prison officials can be sued for money damages under federal law.
• Implications: A ruling for Landor could expand inmates’ rights to pursue damages and deter future religious liberty violations.
• Quote:

  “There’s no circuit split…But there is a Supreme Court case about a sister statute with identical wording...The court is going to have to thread that needle.”
  – Jenny Ruff, [07:24]

Presidential Power: Trump v. Slaughter

• Case summary: Dispute over whether President Trump could lawfully dismiss Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause.
• Legal background: Cites the 1930s Humphrey’s Executor case, which shields independent agency members from at-will removal.
• Key issues: Examines separation of powers and whether the precedent should be overturned.
• Quote:

  “…the Court wants answers to two questions: Does the federal statute's removal protections violate the separation of powers? And if so, does Humphrey’s Executor need to be overturned?”
  – Jenny Ruff, [09:07]

Warrantless Entry: Case v. Montana

• Case summary: Police entered William Case’s home during a welfare check without a warrant after a suicide threat and ended up shooting him.
• Key legal question: What standard applies to the “emergency aid” exception—probable cause or reasonable suspicion?
• Discussion: The conflict between home privacy and emergency intervention.
• Quote:

  “Why would a criminal be entitled to greater protection than a person who needs help?”
  – Jenny Ruff, [11:20]

Conversion Therapy Ban: Chiles v. Salazar (First Amendment)

• Case summary: Christian counselor Kylie Childs challenges Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors, claiming it censors views not approved by the state.
• Key issue: Whether the law constitutes a content-based speech restriction.
• Quote:

  “It’s a speech ban…You can affirm same sex attraction…but you can’t help them become comfortable in their own sex. … It’s a ban of certain speech not approved by the state.”
  – Steve West, [12:35]

Donor Privacy & Subpoena Power: First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin

• Case summary: New Jersey’s Attorney General demands donor and internal records from a pro-life center.
• Key issue: Whether federal or state court decides on First Amendment protection for donor privacy at this stage.
• Quote:

  “What the case is about is which court can we be in, rather than the constitutional issue at this point…”
  – Steve West, [14:08]

Presidential Tariffs: Learning Resources v. Trump

• Case summary: Toy companies challenge tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as an unconstitutional delegation of power to the President.
• Key issue: Scope of Congressional vs. Presidential authority over trade policy.
• Quote:

  “The question here is whether or not Congress has the authority to give that much power to the president and under what circumstances can he exercise that authority.”
  – Steve West, [15:35]

Women’s Sports and Equal Protection: West Virginia v. BPJ & Little v. Hecox

• Case summary: Challenges to state laws prohibiting transgender women from competing in women’s sports.
• Context: Split among courts; 27 states have similar laws.
• Key issue: Whether the “T” in LGBT is a protected class and which level of legal scrutiny applies.
• Quote:

  “One issue that remains is whether the T in the LGBT is a protected class. And that is hugely important.”
  – Mary Reichardt, [17:34]

Campaign Finance Coordination: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC

• Case summary: GOP challenges limits on party-candidate campaign coordination, arguing the rules are inconsistent with super PACs and violate the First Amendment.
• Quote:

  “They say, hey, why limit parties like that when we have super PACs without any spending limits at all?”
  – Mary Reichardt, [18:59]

Asylum Law Interpretation: Urias Orellana v. Bondy

• Case summary: Technical question—should appellate courts defer to immigration judges’ definitions of “persecution” in asylum cases?
• Quote:

  “The facts are pretty dazzling, but the technical legal question, not so much.”
  – Mary Reichardt, [20:17]

---

Government Shutdown and Labor Market Impacts

(Monday Money Beat starts at 21:39)

Shutdown Details & Economic Impact

• Current status: Sixth day of shutdown; over 100,000 federal workers off payroll; about 750,000 furloughed.
• White House estimate: $15 billion lost GDP per week.
• Bonson’s take:
  • Shutdowns are mainly a political issue, not a true driver of market fundamentals.
  • Markets focus on corporate profits; private sector largely unfazed.
  • Estimates for lost GDP may be overstated; the economy reallocates resources, and the long-term impact is slight.
• Quote (David Bonson):

  “The issue with the payrolls is that we’re not going to get a BLS number until the shutdown ends... But why is the stock market up so much... because we’ve been through this a million times. It always ends the same way. It’s a political story, not an economic one.” [24:19]

Can the Shutdown Create Positive Reforms?

• Analysis: Some suggest the shutdown provides an opportunity for agencies to cut wasteful spending.
• Bonson’s skepticism:

  “They’re not cuts. They can reallocate. Some of it could end up being more political... But that doesn’t mean that money doesn’t get spent because it absolutely will. It just moves from one bucket to another in the end.” [25:24]

---

Market Trends and AI Hype

(Continued Money Beat at 26:36)

Reflections from Money Manager Week

• Themes:
  - Divisive opinions on economic outlook and AI. - Debate over whether the AI investment boom is sustainable.
• AI parallels with the dot-com bubble:
  - Many investing without clear revenue models, but major revenue already exists (e.g., Nvidia). - Debate over hardware (chips) vs. applications (software): Are we repeating mistakes of the 2000s?
• Notable exchange:

  “Everybody is saying AI is real. The question is, does the capital expenditure outlays... lead to an investable return and does it lead to a societal return? … I do believe that debate is a really substantive one.”
  – David Bonson, [28:40]

---

World History Book: Jane Goodall’s Life and Legacy

(Segment begins 33:08)

Early Passion and Breakthroughs

• Background: Jane Goodall arrives in Tanzania in 1960 at age 26 to study chimpanzees, overcoming significant hardship and skepticism.
• Key moments:
  • Months spent searching for chimpanzees in extreme heat, finally earning their trust after a year.
  • Notably observed chimps using tools and having varied diets, upending assumptions in science.
  • Developed deep bonds and gave names to her research subjects.
• Quote:

  “I was allowed to approach a small group without attempting to hide. I think it was one of the proudest and most exciting moments of my life.”
  – Jane Goodall, quoted in archival audio, [34:52]

Scientific and Cultural Impact

• Influence:
  • Her observations supported evolutionary explanations for human origins, but also inspired debates about intelligent design.
  • Advocated for conservation and animal rights; founded the Jane Goodall Institute.
  • Inspirational to both secular and religious observers.
• Quote:

  “She was really groundbreaking in showing [chimps] could form relational bonds... Her discoveries could just as easily, if not more accurately, point to an intelligent designer.”
  – Casey Luskin, [37:27 & 37:52]

• Goodall’s philosophy:

  “Once you take action, once you’re doing something … I’ll die easier if I have done my little bit. Even if it’s no use, I’m going to die trying.”
  – Jane Goodall (archival), [39:17]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “Judges are like umpires... Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them.”
  – David Bonson quoting legal wisdom, [00:17]
• “It's not just any old Monday. This is the first Monday in October when the nine justices... return to the bench for a new term.”
  – Mary Reichardt, [05:49]
• “Why has David Bonson shrugged [the shutdown] off as a matter of the economy? Because we’ve been through this a million times. It always ends the same way.”
  – David Bonson, [24:46]
• “It's a very difficult separation of powers issue.”
  – Steve West on the tariff case, [15:35]
• “I often used to think...maybe there's a spark of that great spiritual power in each one of us and if it's so then maybe it's in every animal too... So if we have soul then so do the chimpanzees.”
  – Jane Goodall (archival), [36:37]

---

Segment Timestamps

• 00:05 – Opening and overview of episode themes
• 01:01 – World headlines
• 05:41 – Supreme Court Legal Docket preview
• 21:39 – Monday Money Beat: Government shutdown, labor market, AI hype
• 33:08 – World History Book: The legacy of Jane Goodall

---

This episode delivers an in-depth, accessible look at the new Supreme Court term’s high-stakes cases, the surface and underlying economics of the federal shutdown, and celebrates Jane Goodall’s enduring influence on science and society. It weaves clear explanations, expert insight, and memorable moments for listeners seeking both news and thoughtful analysis.

Transcript

[Mary Reichardt]

Good morning. The U.S. supreme Court is back in session. The cases touch on big issues, free speech, presidential power, intrusive subpoenas, and even haircuts. Close calls, all of them.

[Kent Covington]

Judges are like umpires.

[David Bonson]

Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them.

[Nick Eicher]

That's ahead on Legal docket. Also, the Monday money beat. Today, the economics of government shutdowns. Economist David Bonson is standing by. And the world history book today, the life of a famous primatologist.

[Emma Eicher]

When I looked at the mountains where the chimpanzees live, I knew that my task was not going to be easy.

[Mary Reichardt]

It's Monday, October 6th. This is the world and everything in it. From listener supported World Radio, I'm Mary Reichardt.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.

[Mary Reichardt]

Up next, Kent Covington with today's news.

[Kent Covington]

Israel and Hamas are set to begin indirect peace talks today in Egypt with hopes rising for a possible ceasefire in Gaza. Today marks one week since President Trump introduced a Gaza peace proposal widely backed by other nations in the Middle east and beyond. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio says an end to the war may be closer than ever.

[Steve West]

You have all these countries, the European.

[David Bonson]

Countries, all lined up behind a plan and putting a tremendous amount of pressure to make it happen.

[Kent Covington]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said a hostage release could be announced this week. The terms of the deal call for a release of all hostages within 72 hours, with Israeli forces beginning a withdrawal from Gaza while maintaining a security perimeter. Hamas says it has accepted some elements of the US Plan, but the terror group has not fully agreed to disarm or cede control as the proposal demands. In Washington, it is day six of the government shutdown and lawmakers are no closer to an agreement. Democrats say Republicans need to come to the table and consider their demands for a new funding bill. Congressman SETH magaziner, the only way this ends is with a bipartisan deal, but.

[Nick Eicher]

The dealmakers need to get in the room.

[Kent Covington]

But GOP lawmakers in the House say they've already done their job, passing a bill that would extend the funding that was already in place with no additions or subtractions. And Republicans say Democrats must agree to reopen the government and then they can talk about new policy add ons. Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the blame lies chiefly with the Senate. Minority leader. Chuck Schumer decided he wanted to shut the government down and in doing so, he didn't just vote no on that.

[Casey Luskin]

Bill, he filed an alternative bill.

[Kent Covington]

And the bill includes a trillion and a half dollars in new spending. A Senate vote to extend a clean funding continuation garnered a majority of 55 votes last week, but fell short of the 60 vote threshold needed. President Trump has ordered National Guard deployments in several states amid sometimes violent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He has ordered 300 Illinois National Guard troops to help protect federal officers and facilities. In Chicago, Democratic Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker blasted the order, saying the Trump administration is overstepping its authority and that the move is unnecessary. But Trump responded on Sunday, I believe.

[David Bonson]

The politicians are under threat because there's no way somebody can say that things are wonderful in Chicago.

[Kent Covington]

The White House also confirmed that more than 100 California troops were sent to Oregon over the weekend. That move came after a federal judge blocked Trump from deploying Oregon's own guard to Portland. California Governor Gavin Newsom vowed to sue, calling it an abuse of power. In western Ukraine, firefighters wielding water cannons doused burning homes and apartment buildings in the Lviv region on Sunday that after Russia rained missiles and drones drones down on Ukraine in a massive overnight attack. The assault killed at least five people and damaged civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities in numerous areas. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russia is blatantly trying to destroy civilian infrastructure ahead of winter. He added that his words sadly, there is no strong, adequate response from the international community to what's happening. He said Moscow is mocking the west with its brazenness. Attorneys for hip hop music mogul Sean Diddy Combs are planning to appeal after a court sentenced the Grammy winning artist and executive on Friday to more than four years in prison. Combs attorney Mark Agnifio we're going to.

[David Bonson]

Try and find the right facility for Mr. Combs. We're going to ask the judge to.

[Kent Covington]

Recommend that we are very serious about pursuing an appeal.

[David Bonson]

So we have a number of things all going on at the same time.

[Kent Covington]

The 55 year old was sentenced for transporting people across state lines for sexual encounters. He made a plea for leniency and wept as his lawyers played a video portraying his family life, career and philanthropy. The judge also fined Combs a half million dollars. I'm Kent Covington and straight ahead, the Supreme Court is back in session. We'll have a look at the big cases on legal docket plus the Monday Money Beat with David Bonson. This is the World and Everything in it.

[Nick Eicher]

It's Monday 6th October. Go. Glad to have you along for today's edition of the World and Everything In It. Good morning. I'm Nick Iger.

[Mary Reichardt]

And I'm Mary Reichard well, this is not just any old Monday. This is the first Monday in October when the nine justices of the U.S. supreme Court return to the bench for a new term.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, here on legal docket, that is a little like opening day in baseball, except the whole thing breaks down because it's playoff time. So forget that. What the first Monday brings is instead a fresh slate of cases and controversies, many that will bring rulings that will affect our daily lives.

[Mary Reichardt]

Well, that's right. And starting next week, we will have coverage of oral arguments so you can hear directly from the lawyers and the justices. But today we're looking ahead at some of the bigger disputes already on the docket.

[Nick Eicher]

And for that, we have brought in all of the senior partners in the firm of Rikerd, Ruff and West. That's world's legal reporters Jenny Ruff and Steve West. They are in now. Good morning to both of you. Good to see you. Jenny, good morning. And Steve, good morning.

[Steve West]

Good to be here.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, all three of the lawyers have prepared three cases each. These are matters that they will be following closely this term.

[Jenny Ruff]

Yeah.

[Mary Reichardt]

Well, we better get started. And I think Jenny has the first case for us.

[Nick Eicher]

Yeah, she does. First up is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections. This one involves the dreadlocks an inmate wears, or I should say used to wear, because these were dreadlocks that were cut off against his will. And the question is whether he can sue prison officials for damages under federal religious liberty law. So, Jenny, what happened here and why is this case in front of the U.S. supreme Court?

[Jenny Ruff]

Yes, well, Damon Landor is a practicing Rastafari, so he took the Nazarite vow to not cut his hair. But as you mentioned, the prison officials cut it anyway. And the statute at play is known as rlupa, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Now, there's no circuit split in this case. Circuit courts have consistently said an inmate cannot sue individual prison officials for money damages under the federal law. But there is a Supreme Court case about a sister statute that has identical wording in its relief provision that says such lawsuits are allowed. So the court is going to have to thread that needle.

[Nick Eicher]

So if the court were to side with Landor here, Jenny, if it opens the door to damages, how big could that be for other inmates?

[Jenny Ruff]

Well, it could expand an inmate's ability to sue under this federal law, but the law does fall within a certain context. But it would certainly be a strong deterrent to prison officials.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, number two, Trump v. Slaughter. President Trump fired the head of the federal trade Commission. The Commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter, he fired her without giving a reason. And federal law says that commissioners can only be removed for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. So could you lay the facts out in this one, Jenny?

[Jenny Ruff]

Uh huh. Well, the President, as the head of the Executive branch, has very broad powers to remove members of the executive branch. But as you mentioned, there's a federal law, the Federal Trade Commission act, that says a commissioner can only be removed for specific reasons. And Slaughter argues her removal was unlawful because none of those reasons existed.

[Nick Eicher]

So I understand a lot of the case law here goes way back to the 1930s when the size of government just really exploded.

[Jenny Ruff]

Yeah. 90 years ago, the Supreme Court decided Humphrey's executor versus the United States in a very similar set of facts. President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired Federal Trade Commissioner William Humphrey because Humphrey didn't agree with the President's policies. But the Court held that the President couldn't do that because of the statute. And the rationale at the time was that the Commissioner's job wasn't purely executive. It included quasi legislative and quasi judicial tasks. So jumping forward to the current case, the Court wants answers to two questions. Does the federal statute's removal protections violate the separation of powers? And if so, does Humphrey's executor need to be overturned? But either way, it seems that the Court will look at the role of the FTC and how it has changed over the years.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, Jenny. Well, the third one is Case v. Montana. In this one, police entered a man's home without a warrant after a welfare call. So it's a little bit different. But he says that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights. So could you walk us through how this case unfolded?

[Jenny Ruff]

Yeah. And just real quick reminder, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And it says search warrants must be based on probable cause. But there are exceptions. So it was actually William Case's ex girlfriend called the police. She was on the phone with Case when she heard a pop. And then silence. And he had been threatening suicide. So the police went to his house. Nobody answered. They entered. Case stepped out of a closet holding a dark object in his outstretched arm, and an officer shot him in the abdomen. And the dark object was a gun. So Case was arrested for assaulting a peace officer. But he now wants the gun and other evidence suppressed, saying police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his house without a warrant. So the question here is what standard applies for this emergency aid exception to getting a warrant? The traditional standard is probable cause that an emergency was unfolding, or is it a lesser standard like reasonable suspicion?

[Nick Eicher]

So I guess, too, whether it makes a difference that this was not a criminal investigation, but rather just a welfare check, that's pretty key, I would imagine.

[Jenny Ruff]

That is such an interesting question. And it flags attention that makes this case so hard because if police had been investigating case for a crime, they would have needed probable cause, but because they were supposedly helping, you know, they're arguing the standard is lower. But the court has long said that the home is entitled to the highest level of protection. So it kind of begs the question, well, why would a criminal be entitled to greater protection than a person who needs help? So the justices are really going to have to wrestle with protecting the sanctity of the home, but at the same time wanting police to be able to enter a house when a life is in danger.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, Jenny, thanks so much. Time now to turn to Steve West. He's been watching several cases with First Amendment and executive power themes. Steve, first up for you, Chiles v. Salazar. Colorado bars licensed counselors from engaging minors in what the state calls conversion therapy. So in this one, we see a Christian counselor saying that the state ban violates her free speech rights because it allows therapists to affirm same sex attraction or affirm a gender transition, but not to question any of those things. So talk a bit about that for us. Steve.

[Steve West]

Well, Nick, the law actually says that it actually prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in any practice or treatment, and that includes simply talking to a person that attempts or purports to change their minds about their sexual orientation or gender identity. So it's like a lot of other laws that have proliferated around the country, whether they're passed by states or local municipalities or counties. It's a speech band. And you can help an individual explore and even affirm their same sex attraction or a gender not matching their sex. But you can't help them become comfortable in their own sex or cope with their same sex attraction. So Childs, Kaylee Childs says this is a she's the counselor here. Kylie Childs says this is a free speech issue, that this is a ban of certain speech not approved by the state, whereas other speech is approved by the state. So it's focused on the content of speech and therefore violates her free speech.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, there's a pretty direct tie from this one to the next case, Steve, going from free speech and counseling to free speech and association in a different context, Pro Life ministry. This one is First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin New Jersey's attorney general had subpoenaed a pro life pregnancy center demanding donor lists and demanding internal records. The center says this is a clear violation of its First Amendment rights. So what is the state after here?

[Steve West]

Yeah, first of all, just to clarify, the subpoena issued by the attorney general is an investigatory subpoena. It's not a court subpoena. So he doesn't have any power in and of itself to force the pro life ministry here to disclose the identities of its donors or their other information or name and other their address and that kind of thing. So he has to go to the court, a state court, in order to get an order enforcing it, which is what the attorney general has done. And also the pro life ministry here has gone to the federal court at the same time and asked for an order barring the state from getting this information. And the federal court has deferred to the state and said the issue is not yet ripe for consideration, that you can certainly litigate your claims in state court. So what the case is about is which court can we be in rather than the constitutional issue at this point at least.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, Steve Jenney had a case on presidential power, and you do, too. This last one for you is Learning Resources v. Trump. Two family owned toy companies in this one are challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. They argue that Congress gave too much trade authority over to the President. So, Steve, go through the facts here for us.

[Steve West]

Yeah. These are two companies that import educational toys that are made in China and a few other countries that are affected by tariffs. The Constitution says Congress can assess tariffs, but Congress has also delegated some of that authority to the executive branch through this International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And so it authorizes the President to take action to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States if he declares a national emergency, which is what President Trump has done in this case. First time in 50 years the law has been used in this way. So the question here is whether or not Congress has the authority to give that much power to the president and under what circumstances can the president exercise that authority? It's a very difficult separation of powers issue.

[Nick Eicher]

And so on top of everything, it's on an expedited schedule.

[Steve West]

It is. It'll be heard in November pretty quickly.

[Nick Eicher]

Yeah. All right. Well, questions of free speech, donor privacy and executive power. Steve, thank you very much.

[Steve West]

Welcome.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, Mary, you've been looking at three more cases, starting with a pair of them on women's Sports. First up, West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox. So what are these about? I thought we'd settled these women's sports questions.

[Mary Reichardt]

Well, we haven't. These two cases come out of West Virginia, obviously, for one of them. The other one comes out of Idaho, which was the first state to pass laws protecting women's sports and reserving female sports for females. There is a court split about whether those laws are constitutional. But this really is a big deal because 27 states have something similar to the laws in these two states also protecting women's sports.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, so these two could answer some of the questions, I guess, left open by the recent Scermetti decision. And maybe while you're at it, tell us what Scermetti was all about.

[Mary Reichardt]

Yeah, I'd be glad to. That was a 6 to 3 ruling that upheld Tennessee's law banning medical intervention on minors suffering from gender dysphoria. So this is a really big deal affecting all those other states. And there is a court split whether these laws protecting women's sports are constitutional, which is one reason SCOTUS took the case in the. And then one issue that remains is whether the T in the LGBT is a protected class. And that is hugely important.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, so the justices here are going to have to decide what standard applies, what legal standard, whether it's strict scrutiny or something else.

[Mary Reichardt]

Yeah, Bingo. You can recall we have three levels of scrutiny. We have rational basis, which is really easy to meet. Intermediate, little bit harder. And then, as you say, strict scrutiny, which is the most difficult to overcome. And what classification we're talking about determines which level of scrutiny we use. So here the justices will have to decide which level applies.

[Nick Eicher]

Okay, so we have sports. We have equal protection. We've got money in elections. As another perennial topic for the court, this one is National Republican Senatorial Committee versus fec, the Federal Election Commission. It's a campaign finance case about how much coordination is permitted between political parties and their candidates. So how are the Republicans framing up the argument here?

[Mary Reichardt]

Well, like a lot of cases, it's money, money, money. That's what this is about. And the Republicans are arguing that this is a First Amendment violation case. They say, hey, why limit parties like that when we have super PACs without any spending limits at all? Political parties and candidates can coordinate their spending. There's limits in the law about how much you can donate to a campaign individually. So that's what the Republicans say. That makes no sense at all.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, your final case, Mary, it has to do with Immigration and Asylum. This one is Urias Orellana v. Bondy. That's Pam Bondi, the attorney general. A man from El Salvador here fled after gang violence killed two of his brothers and threatened the rest of his family. He entered the U.S. he asked for asylum. So walk us through this case. What is the court being asked to decide?

[Mary Reichardt]

It's a technical legal question. And that is whether appellate judges have to defer to immigration courts on what persecution means under the law or can appellate judges decide for themselves if the facts are indeed persecution? So it has a very particular meaning. We just don't know what it is yet.

[Nick Eicher]

So ultimately, this dispute is over who makes the final call here, whether it's an immigration judge or an appellate court.

[Mary Reichardt]

That's right. And we get a lot of cases like that. The facts are pretty dazzling, but the technical legal question, not so much. And this is one of them.

[Nick Eicher]

All right. And that is this week's legal docket. Jenny Ruff, thank you.

[Jenny Ruff]

Thank you. That was fun.

[Nick Eicher]

And Steve west, thank you, too.

[Kent Covington]

Thanks, Dick. Additional support comes from from Ambassadors Impact Network, helping entrepreneurs who are looking for more than just funding discover a community of Christian faith led investors [e-mail] from Cedarville University, equipping students for professional excellence and gospel Impact Cedarville Edu World. And from Covenant College, where Christian faculty equip students for their callings through hard ideas, deep questions and meaningful work.

[Nick Eicher]

Covenant.

[Kent Covington]

Edu World.

[Mary Reichardt]

Coming up next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the Monday Money beat.

[Nick Eicher]

Time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you, David.

[David Bonson]

Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, the government shutdown is already making itself known in the labor market. The Wall street journal reporting about 100,000 federal workers have come off the payroll this week under a deferred resignation program. That comes on top of the roughly 750,000 furloughed. The white House is warning the economy could lose about $15 billion in GDP for each week that the standoff continues. And it strikes me as a bit of an odd message from the White House in as much as it highlights the administration's own shutdown costs. But I guess the political subtext there is to try to place the blame, to quantify that blame and to lay it at the feet of congressional Democrats. So I wonder how significant the shutdown is, David, and whether the government job loss matters to the overall employment picture.

[David Bonson]

Well, the Biggest issue that is impacting the payroll numbers in the weeks ahead and months ahead is the furloughs from earlier in the year that are now going to show up in the removal from payrolls that they were, I think eight month programs and a lot of people that elected them early throughout October, November, December is kind of staggered as to when those things will roll off. The shutdowns are either a very small amount of that data or a temporary amount and not part of it whatsoever. In other words, they're going to be coming back on when the shutdown inevitably ends. So the issue with the payrolls is that we're not going to get a BLS number until the shutdown ends. So there are other data points we look to. The ADP number this week for the month of September was negative. The Challenger Gray report is showing the most amount of firings we've had in quite a while, but it's still pretty low. But the least amount of hirings we've had since 2009. And those are both private sector. ADP and Challenger Gray are both private sector reports. So there's a lot of different data points on labor. None of them are particularly great. But the issue that I would push back on is the estimates that there's going to be $15 billion of lost GDP from the shutdowns. I don't think there's any precedent for it being that high. And if the shutdown lasts two weeks, that's 30 billion in a $30 trillion economy. So. So I don't know that I believe the GDP loss is that significant. Primarily, I think what the shutdown does is reallocate resources. But why is the stock market up so much in the last few days as the shutdown started? Why does the private sector shrug it off? Why has David Bonson shrugged it off as a matter of the economy, as a matter of markets, investable markets, because we've been through this a million times. It always ends the same way. It's a political story, not an economic one. And markets fundamentally trade off of corporate profits, not government activity.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, what about this idea? And we heard President Trump talk about this, relying on his budget director, OMB Director Russell Vogt, talking about how the shutdown really gives us an opportunity to make some cuts the Democrats would never stand for in the regular congressional process. You think he's onto something? Is there something good that can come of this?

[David Bonson]

Well, they're not cuts. They can reallocate. So they can cut things and then they'll fill it up somewhere else. And Russell is very thoughtful about this, and I think there could be modest efficiencies that come from it. I do think some of it could end up being more political. But no, I think that that is exactly right. Which is one of the reasons why many are surprised that Schumer is following the far left of his party here, because they really are. Giving a hall pass to a Russ vote is not someone that they like and who does have the ability to go do things now because of this extraordinary circumstance he would not otherwise be able to do. Now some are saying to me, well, now we're going to be able to really trim the deficit out of this. And I'm afraid that's not really the way it works. We can more optimally appropriate funds than we would if things were functioning the way that they normally do congressionally. And this now gives Russ a lot of discretion. And therefore I do think he can get rid of, let's say, certain wasteful situations. But that doesn't mean that that money doesn't get spent because it absolutely will. It just moves from one bucket to another in the end.

[Nick Eicher]

Okay, well, I'd like to turn now to Bonson Group week in review. You came away from your annual money manager week there in New York saying that they were the most heated conversations you've ever been a part of. Now, before we went on the air, you just said it was a doozy. So let's start with why don't you just say, overall, why was it such a doozy?

[David Bonson]

Well, I think the doozy could be applied to the sheer volume. It's very different opinions about where we sit in the economy and where things are going and what to make of some of the major trends that are right in front of us. Everybody, whether they like it or not, is talking about AI. Everybody is talking about some sort of revolutionary shift as a result of this new advanced technology. But there are absolutely some of the brightest people I've ever met that believe we are walking into a really unhealthy setup in how much speculation there is and how much just unprecedented money is being thrown at something that nobody anyone talks to has an idea of exactly how that money's going to come back. And yet the side who just says, close your eyes and with both hands get all in on the AI story. What they're saying is, yeah, you're right. We don't know exactly. We just know that at will. And this is so big. We just want to indiscriminately participate. Some say it a little more intelligently than that some say it less intelligently than that candidly. But I do believe that that debate is a really substantive one. And it isn't anyone saying AI isn't real. Everybody is saying AI is real. The question is, does the capital expenditure outlays of these hyper scalars lead to an investable return and does it lead to a societal return? I would argue that the answer to the societal return is what will generate the investable return and so greater efficiencies, greater productivity, those types of things are investable. But how that plays out and what that means to this sort of circular thing we have going now where the people who make the chips for AI are investing in the AI, let's call it language learning models as the sort of major application and then the main customers are going up because they're buying it and then the main providers are going up because they're selling it. And I just think at some point that circularity has to break. And, and so I have a lot of things I'm considering around it, but they're very nuanced. They're not by AI bubble forever and they're not. This whole thing is going to blow up. It's a joke because it isn't a joke. It's just that I don't think things generally end well when people cannot answer what the investable theme is.

[Nick Eicher]

Yeah, it's so interesting to me, David. We've been talking about whether AI is the next tech bubble and I think back to the tech bubble in the 2000s for what it's worth. I wonder whether there isn't a meaningful difference here versus then when it seemed the Internet bubble was around. Things like. Do you remember that drcoop.com well, sure. All these crazy websites versus AI, which seems very hardware driven. I mean we're talking electricity, real estate, lots of stuff behind it, not just reputation. Does that make a difference?

[David Bonson]

Yeah, but the parallel though is that in what you're referring to with the hardware, the bones of it, those things blew up out of dot com. Not just DrCoop.com, not just Pets.com, all of those Superbowl commercial.com that blew up are an example of the bubble bursting and a lot of capital being set on fire. But remember Juno and Juniper Networks and Cisco and these companies, they all are still around, but some of their stocks are down 90%. See, the Internet became bigger than people thought, not smaller. It's just that what people thought before they had a revenue model was really, really bad. And the valuations of Things that had no revenue model. But you know, a lot of people keep saying how much a ChatGPT or a Grok or an Xai, some of the different LLMs can do. And yet I'm not hearing anyone talk about how it gets monetized. Now I know how the Internet ended up getting monetized is a bazillion companies, including yours and including mine, use it day to day. But a particular website besides Amazon, ebay, and you know, very few really learned how to monetize it for a long, long time. And with AI, I think that there are a lot of great parallels to that dot com tech story. But there are differences too. And one of the big differences is you're already starting off in this thing with big revenues. It isn't like Nvidia. As insanely higher as its stock price has gone and as insanely high as its valuation is, it isn't like it isn't generating more revenue than we've ever seen in history. It is. And all of those dot coms that we could make fun of from 1998, they had no revenue revenue. So there are various differences. But I don't think the hardware, software thing is all that different because I think right now that's the only place anyone in AI has made money is by selling the bones of it. And all the people that sold the bones of the Internet, the servers and the networks and the routers, those were the stocks that proved to be the most overvalued.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, David Bonson, founder, managing partner and chief investment officer at the Bonson Group. David writes regularly for World opinions [e-mail] David, thank you. I hope you have a great, albeit quieter week.

[David Bonson]

Well, thanks so much. I doubt it'll be quiet, but look forward to being with you again.

[Nick Eicher]

Today is Monday, October 6th. Good morning. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Nick Eicher.

[Mary Reichardt]

And I'm Mary Reichard. Up next, the world history book. Today we remember the pioneering scientists whose decades of work with chimpanzees transformed our understanding of nature. World's Emma Eicher has the report.

[Emma Eicher]

In 1960, Ms. Jane Goodall arrives in Tanzania.

[Steve West]

Her discoveries here will startle the scientific.

[Emma Eicher]

World and lead to the possible redefinition of the word man.

[Narrator]

That's from National Geographic's 1965 documentary on Jane Goodall. It's called Ms. Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees.

[Emma Eicher]

When I arrived at the Gombe Stream Reserve, I felt that at long last My childhood ambition was being realized. Always I had wanted to go out into the field and study animals.

[Narrator]

At 26 years old Goodall makes camp in western Tanzania to study chimpanzee behavior. But first she has to find them. She spends two months hiking in temperatures reaching 115 degrees without success. But Goodall is persistent. She searches 12 hours a day through tall grass and dense forest.

[Emma Eicher]

As I am not a defeatist it only made my determination to succeed stronger. There was never any thought of quitting. I should forever have lost all self respect if I had given up.

[Narrator]

At last Goodall finds a group of chimps but they run from her. She has to make her observations from afar, peering through binoculars and scribbling notes. It takes more than a year for the chimps to get used to Goodall's presence. But one day they decide to let her come close.

[Emma Eicher]

I was allowed to approach a small group without attempting to hide. I think it was one of the proudest and most exciting moments of my life.

[Narrator]

Finally the real work can begin and the research will become Goodall's life. For the next 26 years.

[Emma Eicher]

I simply wanted to be amongst animals in the wild and to discover as much as possible about the lives of the chimps.

[Narrator]

Her love of animals began when she was a young girl. After reading the story of Dr. Dolittle, here's 86 year old Goodall in the 2020 National Geographic documentary Jane the Hope.

[Emma Eicher]

Christmas 1942. Death that's the picture. The monkeys making a Bridge and Dr. Doolittle walking across. But for you I might never have gone to Africa.

[Narrator]

In 1957 Goodall met Louis Leakey, an archaeologist in Kenya. She didn't have a college degree but but Leakey recognized her passion for animals. He sent her first to the University of Cambridge and then to Oxford to study for a PhD in ethology. By 1960 she was living on the Gombe stream to study chimpanzees. Primatology was a little known field at the time. Goodall grew to love the chimpanzees that she studied, giving each one a name and documenting their lives. She saw how relational they were with their own personalities. And she is often touted as the only person ever accepted into chimpanzee society.

[Emma Eicher]

I often used to think sitting out there on my own that you know, maybe there's a spark of that great spiritual power in each one of us and if it's so then maybe it's in every animal too. We call it a soul. So if we have soul then so do the chimpanzees.

[Narrator]

Goodall discovered that chimpanzees used tools much like humans, and she refuted the long held belief that chimps were vegetarian. Her work did more than increase understanding. It significantly fueled evolutionary explanations as she documented similarities between humans and chimpanzees. Many used her research as evidence for the idea that humans evolved from apes. Casey Luskin is a geologist at the Discovery Institute.

[Casey Luskin]

People did not accept or anticipate or expect even that chimpanzees had emotions or that they could form sort of relational bonds. And I think that she was really groundbreaking in showing that that was true.

[Narrator]

Luskin says Goodall's evolutionary commitments informed her research. Her discoveries could just as easily, if not more accurately, point to an intelligent designer.

[Casey Luskin]

We could be designed by the same designer to be able to have similar relation building abilities or to form relations across species with one another. I think that's a beautiful thing and maybe that's the way God intended it to be.

[Narrator]

Goodall was a spiritual person. She was raised in a Congregationalist church and said she was open to the reality of God.

[Casey Luskin]

She certainly had some kind of a view of there being something greater than us in the universe, maybe some kind of, you know, divine force or spiritual force. But she definitely tried to synthesize it with evolution.

[Narrator]

And she was more than a scientist. She became a strong conservationist. After leaving Tanzania, she founded the Jane Goodall Institute to advocate for and fund environmental initiatives.

[Casey Luskin]

Part of her legacy is raising environmentalism to the level of it being like a religion where it's all that matters. You know, the environment is important, but humans are also part of this world.

[Narrator]

Goodall's work contradicts scriptural teachings on the nature of humans and God's creation. But her respect for animals has served as an inspiration for millions.

[Casey Luskin]

I really admire the fact that she was willing to put her life on the line to go and work with these very wild and sometimes dangerous animals. That still was very remarkable.

[Narrator]

Goodall was a frequent speaker. She was on tour when she passed away peacefully at the age of 91 on October 1st.

[Emma Eicher]

My job is to go around and inspire people and get them to take action. The message is we are part of the natural world. And once you take action, once you're doing something, once you feel, well, it's my little bit, but I. And I'm going to do my little bit and I'll die easier if I have done my little bit. Even if it's no use, I'm going to die trying.

[Narrator]

That's this week's world history book. I'm Emma Eicher.

[Nick Eicher]

Tomorrow, marking the second anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel and the Trump administration's war on drug lords. By sea and by air. That and more tomorrow. I'm Nick Iger.

[Mary Reichardt]

And I'm Mary Reichardt. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires. The Bible says, give ear and hear my voice. Give attention and hear my speech. Does he who plows for sowing plow continually? Does he continually open and harrow his ground when he has leveled its surface? Does he not scatter dill, sow cumin, and put in wheat and rose and barley in its proper place, and emmer as the border? For he is rightly instructed. His God teaches him. Verses 23 through 26 of Isaiah, chapter 28 go now in grace and peace.