Government

The Law Show

1

The Law Show

BBC Radio 4
Westminster Hour

2

Westminster Hour

BBC Radio 4
Inside the FBI

3

Inside the FBI

Official FBI
The Week in Westminster

4

The Week in Westminster

BBC Radio 4
Supreme Court Oral Arguments

5

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

scotusstats.com
Fingal Libraries' Europe Direct Podcast

6

Fingal Libraries' Europe Direct Podcast

Fingal Libraries' Europe Direct Podcast
The Interview

7

The Interview

BBC World Service

3 MAY

1

Westminster Hour 3 May 2026

Facing up to the costs of the Iran war.

3 May

•

49 min
25 MAR

2

How tough are the UK's asylum laws?

The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s Restoring Order and Control policy is underway. It's based - in part - on measures carried out in Denmark which cut asylum claims there to a 40 year low. From now on in the UK, people granted asylum - refugees - will face a review every two and a half years. If their country of origin is regarded as safe, they may be encouraged, or even forced, to go back. There are lots of other changes. If someone is refused asylum, they’ll only be allowed a single appeal. If an asylum seeker breaks the law, works illegally or can financially support themselves, they’ll lose their benefits or accommodation. Alongside the asylum reforms, there are also major changes to settlement in the UK, affecting both refugees and people on work and study visas. From now on, they will have to wait at least 10 years before they can obtain indefinite leave to remain, which means they can settle in the UK without restrictions. You may be forgiven for thinking -"these are pretty big changes, I don’t recall there being a big debate in parliament or any votes?" And you’d be correct. This was all done through secondary legislation, meaning that it’s a change to existing rules. But what are the possible legal battles for the government as it tries to introduce some of the toughest asylum laws in Europe? Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan Editor: Tom Bigwood Producers: Ravi Naik and Charlotte Rowles Contributors: Dr Peter Walsh, Senior Researcher and lead on asylum at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Law at the University of Cambridge Baroness Levitt, Family Justice Minister

25 Mar

•

28 min
17/05/2024

3

Inside the FBI: The FBI Police

In honor of Police Week 2024, learn how the FBI Police support the FBI mission, how they’re trained, what it takes to join their ranks, and what this week’s observance means to them. For a full transcript and additional resources, visit fbi.gov/news/podcasts.

17/05/2024

•
26 APR

4

Westminster Hour 26 April 2026

Washington shooting and domestic difficulties for the Prime Minister

26 Apr

•

49 min
25 APR

5

25/04/2026

George Parker analyses the latest developments at Westminster. To discuss the ongoing row over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador, and what it means for the Prime Minister's authority, George is joined by Labour MP, Preet Gill, and former Conservative Attorney General, Dominic Grieve. This week the Assisted Dying Bill was finally laid to rest after it ran out of time in the House of Lords. To discuss whether the legislative campaign is over George speaks to one of the Bill's supporters, Green MP Ellie Chowns, and Ruth Fox, director of the Hansard Society. The Commons and Lords were engaged in some parliamentary ping pong this week on the issue of banning social media for under 16s. Former Conservative Schools Minister, Lord Nash, debates with Labour MP, Helen Hayes, chair of the Education Select Committee. And, as the Government announces that its new complaints system for upholding free speech in universities will come in to force later this year, George brings together former Conservative Cabinet minister, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Professor Alison Scott-Baumann of SOAS University of London.

25 Apr

•

28 min
22 APR

6

[25-429] Blanche v. Lau

Blanche v. Lau Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 22, 2026. Petitioner: Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General.Respondent: Muk Choi Lau. Advocates: Sopan Joshi (for the Petitioner) Shay Dvoretzky (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Muk Choi Lau, a native and citizen of China, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on September 7, 2007, after several years of traveling to the country as a nonimmigrant. On May 7, 2012, Lau was charged in New Jersey with third-degree trademark counterfeiting. While awaiting trial, he left the United States for a brief period. Upon returning on June 15, 2012, he presented himself at John F. Kennedy International Airport as a returning lawful permanent resident. However, because of his pending charge, immigration authorities declined to admit him outright and instead paroled him into the country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). Over a year later, in June 2013, Lau pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was sentenced to two years’ probation. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Lau in March 2014, charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Lau argued that he should not have been treated as an arriving alien at the time of reentry and that he was eligible for a discretionary waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The immigration judge rejected both claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Lau petitioned for review, arguing primarily that DHS lacked clear and convincing evidence to treat him as an applicant for admission on reentry merely due to a then-pending charge. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, holding that DHS erred in treating Lau as inadmissible based solely on unproven allegations at the time of reentry and granted his petition. The immigration judge ordered removal in 2018, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision in 2021. The Second Circuit vacated the removal order in 2025 and remanded the case to terminate proceedings under the inadmissibility ground, reserving the possibility of future removal under a deportability provision. Question To remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, must the government prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident’s last reentry into the United States?

22 Apr

•

1hr 30min
25/05/2023

7

Tips for Better Mental Health with Psychotherapist Amber Roche

As part of our European Mental Health Week initiative, psychotherapist Amber Roche joins Barry O'Carroll from Europe Direct Blanchardstown in this podcast. They discuss everyday tips and strategies that can help improve mental health. Here are some resources you may find useful: Amber Roche's website: https://www.moodminderperth.com.au/ Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy: https://www.iacp.ie/ List of accredited psychotherapists in Fingal/North Dublin: https://iacp.ie/page/therapists?co=95... Jigsaw - information and resources in the area of youth mental health: https://jigsaw.ie/

25/05/2023

•

51 min
19 APR

8

Westminster Hour 19 April 2026

Keir Starmer’s Commons showdown and the Scottish election

19 Apr

•

49 min
1 APR

9

[25-365] Trump v. Barbara

Trump v. Barbara Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 1, 2026. Petitioner: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States.Respondent: Barbara. Advocates: D. John Sauer (for the Petitioners) Cecillia D. Wang (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which declared that individuals born in the United States are not U.S. citizens at birth if their parents lack sufficient legal status. Specifically, the order directs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship claims for children born after February 20, 2025, if: (1) the mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR), or (2) the mother’s presence in the U.S. was lawful but temporary and the father was not a U.S. citizen or LPR. The order was issued on the alleged basis that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not confer birthright citizenship on such children because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the constitutional sense. Three families challenged the order on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals. One class representative is Barbara, a Honduran asylum applicant whose child is due in October 2025. Another is Susan, a Taiwanese citizen in the country on a student visa whose daughter was born in April 2025; her child’s passport application was in progress at the time of the suit. The third is Mark, a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025 and initially received a U.S. passport. These families filed suit under pseudonyms, alleging that the Executive Order unlawfully strips their children of citizenship guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). They seek to preserve access to citizenship-related benefits including Social Security, SNAP, and Medicaid. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class of children affected by the order. The court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and before a ruling from that court, the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment. Question Is a presidential executive order that denies U.S. birthright citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents are unlawfully present or in the country on temporary visas consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)?

1 Apr

•

2h 8m
24/09/2021

10

Part 1_ Ricardo Castellini da Silva on Disinformation and Social Media

Does online disinformation pose a threat to democracy in the EU? Part 1 In this first interview in a 4 part series by Europe Direct Blanchardstown Library on disinformation and the threat it poses to democracy Ricardo Castellini da Silva from DCU/Media Literacy Ireland speaks about disinformation and social media.

24/09/2021

•

53 min

Politics

Politics

Updated daily
Government

Government

Updated 5 hr ago
Education

Education

Updated weekly
Government

Government

Updated 13 Mar
Government

Government

Updated 10/11/2025
Government

Government

Updated weekly
Business

Business

Updated 1 May