Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who almost never gives media interviews, sat for a rare podcast conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on “Verdict with Ted Cruz” in late August 2026, timed alongside Cruz’s new biography of Thomas, “Going Further: The Incomparable Clarence Thomas.” In the interview, Thomas thanked Cruz for publicly defending him during years of ethics controversies over undisclosed luxury travel and gifts from GOP megadonors, and separately delivered pointed remarks rejecting the idea that Black Americans are expected to hold uniform political views. The appearance renewed scrutiny of judicial-ethics standards at the Supreme Court, where Thomas is one of several justices — alongside Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — who have faced public criticism over financial disclosure and recusal practices.

Key Takeaways

• Justice Clarence Thomas gave a rare podcast interview to Sen. Ted Cruz on “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” timed with the release of Cruz’s biography of Thomas.
• Thomas thanked Cruz for publicly defending him during years of ethics controversy over undisclosed gifts and luxury travel from GOP-aligned donors.
• Thomas used the interview to reject the idea that Black Americans are expected to hold uniform political views, invoking the phrase “stay black and die.”
• The interview reignited scrutiny of Supreme Court ethics standards more broadly, given parallel controversies involving Justices Alito and Gorsuch.
• Cruz has defended Thomas publicly since at least 2023, arguing scrutiny of Thomas specifically was disproportionate compared to other justices.
• The appearance functions as joint promotion for Cruz’s new Thomas biography, “Going Further: The Incomparable Clarence Thomas.”

A Justice Who Doesn’t Do Media — Until Now

Justice Thomas has long been known as the member of the Supreme Court least likely to appear in any public media setting, making his sit-down on “Verdict with Ted Cruz” a notable departure. The timing was not incidental: Cruz has authored a new biography of Thomas tracing his path from poverty in segregated Georgia to more than three decades on the nation’s highest court, and the podcast appearance functioned as a joint promotional moment for that book as much as a stand-alone interview.

Thanking Cruz for “Standing Up”

Early in the conversation, Thomas directly thanked Cruz for his public defense during a period of intense scrutiny. “You’re one of the people who actually stands up, particularly at times when others seem to wither, and I appreciate it,” Thomas told Cruz, adding: “And more personally, when we, my wife and I, were under attack for obvious reasons, you and Mike Lee and some of the other friends would stand up. So I really appreciate that.” Cruz responded that Thomas’s acknowledgment was especially meaningful “coming from you because you’re someone who knows what that’s like and has done so in a way that has been… world-changing.”

The “obvious reasons” Thomas referenced trace to investigative reporting over the past several years revealing that Thomas accepted two decades of undisclosed luxury travel, real-estate transactions, and other financial benefits from Republican-aligned megadonors without reporting them on required judicial financial-disclosure forms — reporting that triggered ethics complaints, congressional calls for investigation, and renewed debate over the Supreme Court’s lack of a binding, independently enforced ethics code. Cruz has been a vocal public defender of Thomas throughout that period, telling Fox News in April 2023, regarding scrutiny of Thomas specifically, “They’re not looking at any other judges” — a framing Cruz has continued to advance.

On Race and Political Identity

Beyond the ethics discussion, Thomas used the platform to push back forcefully against what he characterized as external pressure to conform to a presumed political consensus based on race. “Then my question is, why is it then that you have a problem with me embracing certain ideas in certain books? What’s the difference?” Thomas said, addressing critics who he suggested view his conservative jurisprudence as a contradiction of an expected racial “script.” Referencing his early adulthood, Thomas recalled: “We had this saying that the only two things I have to do is stay black and die,” using the phrase to argue against any expectation — from either the left or right — that Black Americans must hold uniform political or ideological positions. Thomas also reflected on his own political evolution, telling Cruz that even during his younger, self-described “left-wing radical” period, Cruz suggested “you could see glimmers of the man that Clarence Thomas would become.”

Financial and Market Impact Section

Judicial Ethics as a Recurring Governance-Risk Story

While Supreme Court proceedings don’t move markets in the way Federal Reserve decisions or corporate earnings do, judicial-ethics controversies carry indirect but real financial relevance for the legal, media, and political-advocacy sectors. Continued scrutiny of undisclosed gifts and travel — not just for Thomas but, as the controversy has broadened, for Justice Samuel Alito (criticized over a flag controversy and a son’s brief employment at Treasury while Alito heard tariff-related cases) and Justice Neil Gorsuch (scrutinized over a real-estate transaction) — sustains a durable content and advocacy-fundraising ecosystem: legal-reform nonprofits, court-transparency watchdogs, and opposing political-media outlets all monetize sustained public interest in Supreme Court ethics coverage through membership drives, sponsored content, and advertising tied to legal-services and political-donation platforms, all of which carry above-average CPMs in the politics vertical.

Book Publishing and Media Monetization

Cruz’s biography of Thomas, released alongside this podcast appearance, represents a direct commercial angle: political biographies timed to coincide with media apparitions from their subjects routinely see meaningful sales lifts in their launch week, and publishing-industry analysts tracking political nonfiction as a category will be watching whether the rare-interview strategy — leveraging Thomas’s near-total media silence as a scarcity hook — translates into outsized initial sales relative to comparable judicial or political biographies released without a coordinated interview tie-in.

Confidence-in-Institutions Metrics

Public Supreme Court approval and trust polling — tracked regularly by Gallup, Pew, and Marquette Law School’s national survey — has trended downward over the multi-year period spanning the initial ethics revelations, and continued high-profile media moments involving the justices at the center of those controversies remain a factor pollsters and political-risk analysts cite when modeling public confidence in the judiciary, a metric with downstream relevance for how aggressively Congress pursues binding judicial-ethics legislation, itself a live and unresolved legislative question with implications for how the Court operates going forward.

A Madison PD stalking probe led to a Fond du Lac home filled with Ed Gein items, human skulls, and poison-labeled jars. Here’s what the complaint actually alleges.

Benjamin C. Larson, 47, of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, is charged with one felony count of stalking — not murder or any homicide-related offense — after a Madison woman he briefly dated in 2013 reported 13 years of unwanted contact. A joint search warrant executed August 14, 2026, by the Fond du Lac County Sheriff’s Office and Madison Police Department uncovered items linked to serial killers Ed Gein and John Wayne Gacy, along with apparent human skulls and skeletal remains. A forensic anthropologist’s initial examination found many of the remains are likely ancient Native American artifacts, and testing to confirm authenticity and origin is ongoing. Larson has not been charged with any crime related to the remains themselves.

What the Criminal Complaint Actually Alleges

According to the criminal complaint filed August 18, 2026, in Dane County Circuit Court, the case originated as a stalking investigation, not a homicide case. The alleged victim told Madison Police she dated Larson for approximately two months in 2013 before ending the relationship, describing it as “very intense.” At one point during their brief relationship, she said, Larson shared that he was obsessed with Ed Gein, the notorious Plainfield, Wisconsin, killer whose crimes decades ago inspired multiple horror-film characters. The relationship reportedly ended after Larson called the woman and threatened to commit suicide.

Per the complaint, Larson continued contacting the woman for the next 13 years through letters, emails, cards, and gifts — including a 15-page email sent in 2015 — after she moved to Canada. When she did not respond, prosecutors allege, Larson escalated by filing professional complaints against her with licensing boards in multiple states, including Wisconsin, Oregon, and North Carolina, reportedly telling investigators his therapist suggested the complaints as a way to provoke a response. A card sent to the victim’s office in November 2025 read, according to the complaint: “I will continue to try contacting you until I hear something from you. I’m not sure if I need to try calling, or just knock on your door someday, or what.”

The Search and What Investigators Found

Detectives from the Madison Police Department and the Fond du Lac County Sheriff’s Office executed a search warrant on August 14, 2026, at Larson’s residence on County Road Q in rural Fond du Lac County, in the town of Taycheedah. Inside, according to multiple local outlets citing the complaint and sheriff’s office statements, investigators found:

A Basement Collection Tied to Notorious Killers

• A grave rubbing of Ed Gein and ten binders labeled “Edward Gein Book,” along with items reportedly taken from Gein’s grave.
• Cartridges described as similar to those associated with the unidentified Zodiac Killer.
• A jar bearing a label claiming to contain a piece of serial killer John Wayne Gacy’s brain.
• Bottles labeled with poison names including arsenic, strychnine, cyanide, and ricin (authorities have not confirmed the actual contents match the labels).
• A mummy labeled “Princess Taheb 1600 BC.”
• What appeared to be six human skulls, a partial skull, a human jawbone, and additional skeletal remains held in a glass casket.

Separately, officers reportedly found a bin containing items the complaint says belonged to the victim, including paper towels, an earring, and discarded beverage bottles, alongside a 25-page journal in which Larson allegedly wrote about “aching” to “take their skulls, all of them” in reference to the victim’s family, and described a night he allegedly surveilled her Madison home dressed in black.

The Remains: What’s Actually Confirmed

The Fond du Lac County Sheriff’s Office says it obtained a separate search authorization specifically to investigate the apparent human remains once they were discovered, and is working with a forensic anthropologist affiliated with the Wisconsin Crime Lab, the Wisconsin Historical Society, and the Wisconsin Inter-Tribal Repatriation Committee to determine whether the remains are authentic and, if so, their age and origin. Critically, the forensic anthropologist’s initial examination determined that many of the remains are likely ancient Native American in origin — a finding that, if confirmed, would route the case toward repatriation and historical-preservation processes under state and federal law rather than a homicide investigation. As of this writing, Larson has not been charged with any offense connected to the remains, and authorities have been explicit that this aspect of the investigation is ongoing and unresolved.

Larson’s Response and Case Status

When contacted by law enforcement, Larson reportedly characterized his communications with the victim as “civil” and maintained that the licensing-board complaints were his therapist’s suggestion, intended to elicit a response from her. He was released from custody after posting a $15,000 cash bond and is due back in Dane County court on September 11, 2026. If convicted on the single felony stalking count — a Class I felony in Wisconsin — he faces up to three and a half years in prison and up to $10,000 in fines.

Financial and Market Impact Section

Why True-Crime Content Drives Disproportionate Ad Value

Cases combining a documented criminal complaint, forensic ambiguity, and pop-culture-adjacent details (Gein memorabilia, in particular, given the character’s enduring influence on horror franchises) reliably generate outsized engagement in the true-crime content vertical, one of the highest-CPM categories in digital publishing alongside personal finance and insurance. Programmatic ad networks and native-content platforms consistently price crime-and-justice content above general news baselines because of high time-on-page and strong click-through on adjacent legal-services, background-check, and home-security advertising — meaning accurate, well-sourced coverage of unresolved forensic cases like this one carries genuine monetization value distinct from its news significance.

The Forensic-Testing Economy

Beyond direct ad revenue, stories involving forensic anthropology, DNA identification labs, and repatriation processes intersect with a specialized services economy — private forensic labs, genetic genealogy firms, and museum conservation contractors — that increasingly advertises against exactly this kind of coverage. As testing on the Fond du Lac remains proceeds, follow-up reporting on radiocarbon dating timelines, state crime lab capacity constraints, and repatriation costs represents a natural content extension with continued monetization potential as the story develops.

Key Takeaways

• Benjamin C. Larson, 47, of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, faces one felony stalking charge — not a homicide or serial-killer-related charge — tied to 13 years of alleged contact with a Madison woman.
• A joint Madison PD/Fond du Lac Sheriff’s Office search warrant executed August 14, 2026, uncovered items linked to Ed Gein and John Wayne Gacy, along with apparent human skulls and skeletal remains.
• A forensic anthropologist’s initial assessment suggests many of the remains are likely ancient Native American artifacts; authentication and origin testing is ongoing.
• Larson has not been charged with any crime connected to the remains themselves as of this writing.
• Larson posted a $15,000 cash bond and is scheduled to return to Dane County court September 11, 2026; a stalking conviction carries up to 3.5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
• The case remains under active investigation, with the Fond du Lac Sheriff’s Office coordinating with the Wisconsin Crime Lab, Wisconsin Historical Society, and Wisconsin Inter-Tribal Repatriation Committee.

Shanghai Ravioli Corporation recalled 24,900 lbs of frozen Buffalo chicken products over a missing federal inspection. Here’s the full product list, sell-by dates, affected states, and how to check if you’re impacted.

Key Takeaways

• Shanghai Ravioli Corporation of Boston, Massachusetts recalled approximately 24,900 pounds of frozen, not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) Buffalo chicken products on August 26, 2026.
• The recall (FSIS Recall 018-2026) is classified as High – Class I, the USDA’s most serious recall category, because the products were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and bear false USDA inspection marks.
• Two products are affected: “Buffalo Chicken Rangoon” (100-piece boxes) and “Benedetto’s Buffalo Chicken Mozzarella Stick” (120-piece boxes), both bearing establishment number “EST. 18004,” which does not hold a valid federal grant of inspection.
• Products were manufactured over nearly a full year — from July 8, 2025, to June 29, 2026 — with sell-by dates ranging from July 8, 2026, to June 29, 2027, meaning affected inventory could still be sitting in commercial freezers.
• The recall was shipped to foodservice locations across five New England states and was discovered through routine FSIS surveillance, not a consumer complaint or reported illness.

What Products Are Affected?

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) identified two specific recalled products:

• “BUFFALO CHICKEN RANGOON” — sold in cardboard boxes containing 100 pieces, with “Sell By” dates ranging from July 8, 2026, to June 29, 2027.
• “BENEDETTO’S BUFFALO CHICKEN MOZZARELLA STICK” — sold in cardboard boxes containing 120 pieces, with the same range of “Sell By” dates.

Both products bear the establishment number “EST. 18004” printed on the label — but critically, this number does not correspond to a valid federal grant of inspection, meaning the products were manufactured and labeled as though they had undergone required USDA oversight when they had not.

Why Was This Recall Issued?

Unlike many food recalls driven by contamination, illness reports, or allergen mislabeling, this recall centers on a regulatory compliance failure: the products were produced without the benefit of inspection, a designation that means the facility bypassed the federal oversight process required for meat and poultry products intended for interstate commerce.

The FSIS classified the recall as High – Class I, its most serious risk category, reflecting the agency’s determination that consuming or distributing uninspected product carries a reasonable probability of adverse health consequences — not necessarily because contamination has been confirmed, but because the entire chain of required safety verification was absent.

Use of false federal inspection marks is explicitly prohibited under both the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. FSIS noted this is not an isolated incident: a March 2026 FSIS alert flagged similar false-inspection-mark issues involving raw beef and pork products, suggesting this type of compliance failure has recurred across the industry in 2026.

Where Were the Products Shipped?

According to FSIS and follow-up reporting, the recalled products were distributed to foodservice locations across five New England states. Specific retail or foodservice distribution lists, when available, are typically posted on the FSIS website as part of the agency’s recall effectiveness verification process.

Because these products were shipped to foodservice locations rather than direct retail shelves, individual consumers may be affected indirectly — for example, through restaurants, cafeterias, or catering operations that purchased and served the recalled items — making direct consumer awareness more challenging than with a typical grocery-store recall.

Consumer and Foodservice Action Guide

If You Are a Foodservice Operator

• Check your freezer inventory immediately against the product names, establishment number (EST. 18004), and sell-by date range listed above.
• Do not serve or sell any matching product, even if it appears visually normal — the issue is a documentation and inspection failure, not necessarily a visible contamination defect.
• Contact Shanghai Ravioli Corporation directly with questions: Jordan Wu, QC Manager, at 617-989-3833 or shanghaicorp@gmail.com.
• Document your inventory and disposal of any recalled product for your own compliance records, particularly if you operate in a jurisdiction with local health department reporting requirements.

If You Are a Consumer

• If you believe you purchased or were served an affected product, particularly given the wide production window (nearly a full year), do not consume any remaining product matching the description.
• Contact the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline toll-free at 888-674-6854 (888-MPHotline) or via email at MPHotline@usda.gov with any food safety questions.
• Submit complaints through the USDA’s Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System, available 24 hours a day, if you experienced any adverse health effects potentially linked to consumption.
• Monitor for updates to the retail or foodservice distribution list on the FSIS website, since more specific distribution information may be published as the recall investigation continues.

What This Recall Means for Food Safety Compliance

For Food Manufacturers

This case is a pointed reminder that regulatory compliance failures can trigger the same severity of recall classification as contamination events. Manufacturers should treat inspection status verification — for their own facilities and for any co-packers or supply chain partners — as a critical, ongoing compliance function rather than a one-time certification.

For Foodservice Distribution Partners

Given that these products moved through foodservice channels across multiple states before the compliance gap was identified, this recall illustrates the traceability challenge inherent in B2B food distribution. Foodservice operators should maintain robust supplier verification processes, including periodic confirmation of establishment numbers against the USDA’s public database of federally inspected establishments.

Broader Industry Pattern

With FSIS flagging a similar false-inspection-mark issue in raw beef and pork products earlier in 2026, this recall is part of a recurring compliance theme this year — one that regulatory and legal observers suggest may prompt increased FSIS surveillance activity across the broader meat and poultry processing industry.

Actionable Takeaways

• Foodservice operators: Cross-check current freezer inventory against the specific product names, establishment number, and date ranges listed in this recall today.
• Consumers who consumed a recalled product and experienced illness: Document symptoms, retain any available product packaging or receipts, and consult a medical professional; food safety and product liability attorneys can also advise on whether legal options may be available depending on individual circumstances.
• Industry stakeholders: Treat this recall as a signal to audit supplier and co-packer inspection status verification processes, particularly given the recurring nature of false-inspection-mark violations flagged by FSIS this year.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should I do if I have Shanghai Ravioli Buffalo chicken products in my freezer?

Do not consume or serve any product matching “Buffalo Chicken Rangoon” or “Benedetto’s Buffalo Chicken Mozzarella Stick” with establishment number EST. 18004 and the affected sell-by date range; dispose of it or return it according to guidance from the retailer or foodservice supplier, and contact the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 888-674-6854 with any questions.

Why was the Shanghai Ravioli chicken recalled if no illnesses were reported?

The recall was issued because the products were produced without the required federal inspection and bore false USDA inspection marks, which the FSIS classifies as a High – Class I risk regardless of whether contamination or illness has been confirmed, since the entire required safety verification process was bypassed.

Can I get a refund for recalled Shanghai Ravioli chicken products?

Consumers and foodservice operators with questions about refunds or replacement should contact Shanghai Ravioli Corporation directly at 617-989-3833 or shanghaicorp@gmail.com, as the company is responsible for coordinating its own recall remedy process with affected customers and distributors.