The World and Everything in It: April 20, 2026

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Today on Legal Docket:

Who is responsible to speak up when one side in a criminal trial thinks the other side is discriminating?

ALITO: This is the most timid and reticent defense counsel that I have encountered. Any competent defense attorney that I knew would have spoken up.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Also the Monday Moneybeat: how much longer before oil prices settle? David Bahnsen is standing by.

And the WORLD History Book: a family legacy races through the streets of Boston.

HOYT: They made a decision right there in that moment: They’re like nobody’s keeping us off the Boston course.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, April 20th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Iran negotiations » The clock is ticking in Iran, with the current U.S.-Iranian ceasefire set to expire in two days. The two sides still haven't scheduled a second round of in-person peace talks.

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz told CBS Face the Nation:

WALTZ: Anybody who has dealt with the Iranians will tell you it is often two steps forward, three steps back. They're incredibly slippery. Uh, they can't be trusted. They cheated over the years.

Pakistan has offered to host another round after the first meeting there more than a week ago went nowhere.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said Sunday:

KAINE: It's my hope that in the negotiations we would first agree to extend the ceasefire, then we would talk about this nuclear issue. And look, I think the US has other issues on the table too, about ballistic missiles – or support for terrorism in the region.

President Trump has renewed his threat to hit Iranian infrastructure if a deal is not reached. Some Democrats call such strikes potential war crimes. Waltz pushed back.

WALTZ: Bridges. Power plants that are run by the IRGC, which runs the entire military are absolute legitimate military targets. Not only now, but have been historically, that is a false, fake and ridiculous notion that this is some type of war crime.

Meanwhile, a U.S. Navy destroyer blew a hole in an Iranian-flagged cargo ship near the Strait of Hormuz Sunday then seized it. It's the first seizure since the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports began last week.

UAE attacks » And with Iran lashing out across the region, it has targeted the United Arab Emirates more than any other country — including Israel.

The UAE’s Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy told ABC's This Week:

HASHIMY:  And for us, it's very clear that they've chosen to go down this path because we are everything that they're not. We are a model of economic prosperity. We have 200 nationalities that live there. We have religions and cultures from all around the world.

Since the start of the conflict Iran has launched nearly 3,000 strikes on the UAE including multiple civilian sites. The UAE is an American ally and Washington keeps a significant U.S. military presence in the country.

FISA Section 702 extension » A major U.S. surveillance program just got a 10-day lifeline. President Trump signed a stopgap bill over the weekend — extending Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — or FISA — through April 30th.

The program was set to expire today.

Congress has been locked in a fight over whether to renew the program long-term. Trump's own party rejected an 18-month deal he pushed for and a five-year plan with privacy safeguards.

Speaker Mike Johnson:

JOHNSON: There are some nuances with the language and some questions that need to be answered, and we'll get it done. The extension allows us the time to do that.

Section 702 lets U.S. spy agencies and the FBI collect overseas phone calls, texts, and emails without a warrant. Officials call it vital — the CIA, for example, credits the program with stopping a mass-casualty attack at a Taylor Swift concert.

But critics warn Americans' own private messages often get swept in — with no warrant required.

UK investigation of attacks on Jewish sites » In London, counter-terror police are investigating arson attacks on Jewish sites across the city.

Arsonists torched a north London synagogue over the weekend. It only sustained minor damage and no one was hurt. But it was just the latest in a string of incidents. Attackers have also set fire to Jewish charity ambulances and a Persian-language media company.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans of the Metropolitan Police said UK authorities:

EVANS: Remain alive to the threat of Iranian hostile activity in the UK. We are aware of public reporting that suggests this group may have links to Iran.

A radical Islamist group has claimed responsibility online.

British intelligence says it disrupted more than 20 Iran-backed plots last year.

Rabbi Naftali Schiff of the Jewish Futures organization:

SCHIFF: Once again, that the Jewish community has been targeted by extremism. Um, sadly I would say that, that the Jews seem to be societies pit canaries.

So far, no one has been hurt — but British authorities are ramping up patrols across Jewish neighborhoods.

Mass shooting in Kyiv » A man set fire to his own apartment in Kyiv over the weekend. Then he walked out with a gun and began shooting people on the street, killing at least six.

Police say the shooter was a 58-year-old Russian-born man who had lived for years in Ukraine's war-torn Donetsk region.

KLYMENKO: [Speaking Ukrainian]

Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said video of the attack showed the gunman walking up to victims and firing at close range. He said “people had very little chance of survival.”

He later barricaded himself inside a nearby supermarket with hostages killing one of them.

Ukraine's security service is calling the attack terrorism. Police say the suspect had a prior criminal record.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Legal Docket. Plus, a determined father and son’s Boston marathon legacy.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 20th day of April, 2026. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for Legal Docket.

Two Supreme Court cases today—very different facts, but both raising a question about what happens when the rules of the courtroom collide with notions of fairness.

First, a murder case out of Mississippi—one that started as a local crime story:

MONTAGE: A federal judge has overturned the death penalty for a man / convicted of murdering a store owner / because the trial judge … didn't give the man's lawyer enough of a chance to argue the prosecution was dismissing black jurors, / but the state Supreme Court ruled … the defense never challenged … striking those potential jurors over race.

EICHER: That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

And the question is not whether discrimination happened.

It’s whether the defense lawyer did enough to preserve the claim that discrimination occurred—and whether it ought to matter.

That’s where we start today.

Before we get to the facts, here’s a moment from oral argument that captures the dispute about what the defense lawyer did—or did not do:

THOMAS: But did the trial counsel offer an argument or evidence that the reasons offered by the prosecutor were indicating she did not raise these objections?

PERKOVICH: ….trial counsel sought to be heard …-and was told by the trial judge repeatedly that her record was preserved.

THOMAS: But didn't trial counsel subsequently file an affidavit indicating that she did not raise these objections?

PERKOVICH: Justice Thomas, yes, that's correct.

So right there you hear the tension: did the defense lawyer actually make the right argument or not? And that matters because this case is about jury selection, and whether racial discrimination was let in because of a procedural breakdown.

REICHARD: Here are the facts in Pitchford v Cain.

Back in 2006, a jury convicted 18 year old Terry Pitchford of capital murder.

That arose from a robbery in which a shopkeeper named Reuben Britt was killed. Pitchford didn’t fire the fatal shot; his younger accomplice did that.

Prosecutors argued he still had the required intent to commit capital murder.

EICHER: The legal question before the Supreme Court is about whether prosecutors improperly struck black jurors.

Analysis of whether that happened is governed by a case called Batson v Kentucky.

Batson set up a three-step process. One, the defense raises a concern about racial bias. Two, the prosecutor offers race-neutral reasons. And three, the judge decides whether those reasons are genuine—or a pretext.

REICHARD: Pitchford’s lawyers say step three never happened. The judge didn’t really examine how credible were those reasons to strike black jurors.

During jury selection, prosecutors struck four of the five black jurors and accepted 16 of the first 18 white jurors. This is in a county about 40% black.

So the defense objects. That’s step one.

The prosecutor gives explanations. That’s step two.

EICHER: Then the judge says in essence, “your objection is on the record,” and proceeds with the trial.

The defense says that’s no step three at all, because the judge didn’t evaluate the explanations.

So Pitchford appealed. He lost in the lower courts on grounds that the defense waived the argument. Another way to put it: even if something unconstitutional happened—too bad. His lawyer didn’t push hard enough to preserve the issue for appeal.

REICHARD: Justice Samuel Alito focused on that. Listen:

ALITO: Well, this is the most timid and reticent defense counsel that I have encountered. Any competent defense attorney that I knew would have spoken up…. take this example. …This is Juror Number 30, the prosecutor is called upon to give his race-neutral reasons. He says: She has mental problems. According to a police captain, they've had numerous calls to her house, and said she obviously has mental problems. The court said that would be race neutral as to that juror. And nothing is said. I mean….

Point being, why didn’t the defense lawyer push back on that?

Still, other justices saw it differently. Justice Elena Kagan doubted the state’s argument:

KAGAN: She should’ve been more assertive. But the only question before us is did she waive her objection when three times, she's told by the court, “you’re objection is in the record. I hear you.”

STEWART: ….The Mississippi Supreme Court did not hold that her objection was waived. It held that her pretext arguments were waived. It up --it upheld the finding on that.

KAGAN: That's slicing the baloney very thin. [Laughter.] I’m sorry. General Stewart!

EICHER: Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on something else: maybe the defense lawyer really was trying to object, but the judge shut her down:

KAVANAUGH: He read the record entirely differently than you did, and he pointed to this --this --this part right here where she's trying, I think --we weren't there; we don't have an audio recording --to --to make the objections, and --and the court says, "you already made those," they're clear, and "the court finds there to be no Batson violation."

That points to the possibility that this wasn’t about a passive lawyer, but rather a breakdown in communication with the judge.

And then Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reframed the case like this:

JACKSON:I see this also as possibly a very short opinion. It would go something like: Pitchford’s trial counsel made a Batson objection and re-raised it multiple times. Each time, the trial judge reassured her that it was preserved. Nevertheless, Mississippi Supreme Court said it was waived. That's unreasonable. The end. What would be wrong with that?

PERKOVICH: Not anything I can think of. [Laughter]

REICHARD: An exchange suggesting this might be an easy fix, at least for some of the justices.

But there’s a deeper tension here. Prosecutors often give race-neutral reasons for striking jurors—like skepticism of law enforcement.

Some friend-of-the-court briefs argue those reasons can act as a proxy for race, because black jurors may be more skeptical of police.

EICHER: So how should courts distinguish between legitimate reasons and hidden discrimination?

And this is happening in the context of a death penalty case, where the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Justice Kavanaugh:

KAVANAUGH: ….the reason this matters is this is a death penalty case, right, and he was 17 when he committed the crime, and he did not, not that this is good, but he was not the shooter, correct?

STEWART: That's right, Your Honor.

Alright, now to case two:

ROBERTS: We’ll hear argument today in case number 255146, Abouammo versus United States.

REICHARD: We leave Mississippi and go to Silicon Valley by way of Saudi Arabia. Different facts, but still a question about legal rules and how strictly to apply them.

Ahmad Abouammo is a former employee of Twitter, as it was called back in 2013. He handled accounts in the Middle East and through that connected with associates of Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

EICHER: The US government says he passed along private user data like phone numbers and emails in exchange for luxury gifts. In turn, those associates targeted people critical of the royal family.

When the FBI came to his house to investigate, Abouammo allegedly made a fake invoice to cover up what he did.

REICHARD: And this is where the legal dispute comes in.

He made that fake document in Seattle, where he lived. But he was prosecuted in San Francisco, where the FBI office is.

So now the question is: where can the government bring the case?

The Constitution says you have the right to be tried where the crime was committed. That’s called “vicinage.” 

EICHER: Abouammo argues the crime was complete the moment he created the false invoice—so the case belongs in Seattle, not San Francisco.

REICHARD: But the government says that’s wrong. It says the crime includes its effects—the investigation was in San Francisco, and the invoice was meant to influence it.

That didn’t seem to sit well with the justices. Chief Justice Roberts offered this hypothetical:

ROBERTS: It just seems very bizarre to me. ….I mean, the guy does whatever it is to create the document, and he says, oh, that's a crazy idea, and tears it up. You're going to prosecute him?

Justice Jackson pushed the government’s argument to the limit. Suppose the government decided a certain crime committed in Seattle is best prosecuted in New York because they have more experience.

JACKSON: Is your view that venue would be proper in the Southern District of New York? 

YANG: Yes.

EICHER: Point being, that would pretty much do away with venue protections.

Justice Alito also tested the limits with this hypothetical:

ALITO: So you can’t withdraw for on half a second?…maybe someone creates a false document but ….says, I'm going to just create this, but I'm not actually going to send it. And then, for one second, he's tempted. I'll actually send this. And then he immediately says, no, that's the wrong thing to do. Too late?

Then this vivid exchange between Justice Clarence Thomas and the government’s lawyer:

THOMAS: But he e-mailed it -¬he transmitted it from Seattle.

YANG: Mm-hmm. But it was directed specifically at the Northern District of California. He knew the agents were conducting an investigation there and that is where they're from. It's no different than pointing a gun and shooting. He shot the e-mail and he hit Northern California.

REICHARD: This is another situation where old rules don’t quite fit modern life. The government sees digital actions as traveling—happening in one place, but taking effect somewhere else.

The defense, by contrast, understandably wants clear limits on where a case can be brought.

EICHER: Before we go, one opinion from last week: a unanimous win for energy company Chevron, in a high-stakes environmental dispute.

Plaquemines parish sued in Louisiana state court, alleging that Chevron’s oil production during World War II caused damage to the coastal wetlands.

The company supplied critical fuel to the U.S. war effort, operating under government direction.

A state jury had awarded the parish millions of dollars in damages.

The legal question was whether this case should be heard in state or federal court. The answer could be heard in lawyer Paul Clement’s argument on behalf of Chevron during oral argument in January:

CLEMENT: The classic person who acts under a government official is a government contractor providing the government with what it needs to win a war.

REICHARD: The decision sends the case back to federal court. That’s a venue that corporations typically see as more neutral for complex and high-stakes disputes.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It:

The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bahnsen Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Good morning. Good to be with you.

EICHER: Let’s start with what markets are reacting to right now. We’ve had this back-and-forth Friday and Saturday over whether the Strait of Hormuz is open—but what do markets actually care about in an ambiguous situation like this?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think what you have seen now is that the markets have a quick response to things that look like bad news, and they have a quick response to things that look like good news. And there’s two reasons for that. First of all, good news results in a better situation in markets fundamentally, and bad news does the opposite.

But then there’s also a quicker trading response to it, where people that were hedging one way have to undo hedges, or people that were speculating one way have to undo speculation. You look to Friday’s market action, where markets closed up and had a big up day, but the highest level of the day was very early on.

And I think that what you’re going to see here is that the Strait of Hormuz is open, stays open. The markets are less interested in some of the other things that might be even bigger stories geopolitically, in terms of what the future of the Iranian regime is going to be and what the real long-term status will be for Middle East peace and Israel’s place in the region and so forth.

Markets, in my opinion, when we define financial markets correctly, have no ability to price that in. It’s a 30-year thing, a 20-year thing. Markets have no history that it moves up and down. So when people say, well, hey, we might have this really good long-term outcome, doesn’t that create a peace dividend in markets? It’s very different than the Cold War, where a whole empire went away.

In this case, you say, well, I think markets now have enough news to say that such and such has gotten better. But markets know that when Hamas went away, Hezbollah came, or when Hezbollah went away, ISIS came. There’s just been moving parts in the Middle East. And I don’t expect markets to price in a generational change, but I do expect markets to do exactly what they did Friday, which is say, if the Strait of Hormuz is open, more petrochemicals are being delivered, more oil is being delivered, prices can come down.

Now, you notice what didn’t happen? Oil didn’t go back to 70. Oil didn’t go back to 64. Oil came way off of the $100 level, but still sitting into the 80s. There is still questions about the equilibrium between supply and demand, and that’s what you see priced in commodity markets.

EICHER: You pointed out something really interesting—oil came down, but not all the way back. It didn’t go to $70 or less, it’s still elevated. What is the market telling us there—and is the real issue less the next few weeks of supply, and more whether expectations change between now and then?

BAHNSEN: It’s more than weeks. In some cases, there’s some parts of this. If you look at the liquefied natural gas production in Qatar, which is 17% of the LNG that gets out of the Middle East, out of the Persian Gulf, to Europe and Asia, that’s a couple years to rebuild infrastructure.

So there’s elements of it that are even longer than a few weeks, and there’s almost no elements that are quicker than a few weeks. However, Nick, it’s important to remember that markets are discounting mechanisms. Prices don’t reflect what is right now this second. If we know something will be such and such in six weeks, markets can price that ahead.

And so there’s a lot of complexity in this, but I think the bigger issue for markets is not the fact that some oil won’t get delivered for four to six weeks. It’s that whatever we believe is going to get delivered in four to six weeks today, is our belief going to change between now and then? Because there’s still a lot of open-ended questions in the overall situation.

EICHER: Let me ask about the U.S. angle—there’s a lot of talk that disruptions like this are a long-term win for American energy. Is that overstated?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, here’s what I would say in terms of the U.S. opportunity in the moment. With Russia-Ukraine, we got a perfect example of why Europe needed to rely on bad actors less for its energy needs. And on the margin, Europe did increase purchases of liquefied natural gas from the U.S.

The largest enemy of that was not Putin, and it wasn’t Germany. It was President Biden. It was the ESG movement. It was the U.S. domestic left-wing progressive opposition to it. A lot of that has been heavily defanged, but our ability to meet world LNG needs is non-existent. We can increase production, we can increase our building of terminals, but we have no ability to meet the world’s need.

So that’s one of the things that I think—and we’ve had WORLD listeners that have reached out with questions on a lot of this—because people say, well, if we can make more oil than we need, then why does the world price affect us at all? And the complexity in that is the refinery that we have to refine oil, because there’s different grades of what we’re making versus what has to be imported.

And if it was all one grade of oil, the total amount in aggregate that we need, we could meet on our own. But it doesn’t work that way. So it requires a refinery process, and it gets priced into refinery spreads. And also, we don’t build new refineries.

So when you add—this is the economic tie into this political question—when you look at Europe’s opposition to fossil fuel, when you look at US difficulty in building refineries or nuclear power plants or LNG export terminals, none of this is a light switch. And so then you have to factor in the economics of capital investment into long-term projects versus short-term volatility of outcome, political headwinds, change of administration, electoral changes.

It’s just a very complicated element. My belief, the great opportunity we have with American enterprise, is to just stay long energy, stay long an all-of-the-above policy portfolio. And when opportunities come for more LNG investment, for more crude oil production, for the fracking that made all of this possible, for more buildout of LNG, understand that every time you embrace it, you’re not just embracing a pro-growth economic agenda. You’re embracing a future geopolitical benefit the next time a bad actor does something.

So this is a really big story, Nick.

EICHER: You wrote this week in Dividend Café that the story around AI has flipped—from lifting the whole tech sector to fears it could wipe out big parts of software—and you argue people are confusing disruption in the industry with destruction of the industry. What are they getting wrong?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think the high-level takeaway is that when people talk about disruption, they often get confused—disruption with destruction—and that adaptation is the blessing of a market economy.

There are some companies that, the horse-and-buggy example we use from the industrial revolution, they didn’t get to merely pivot. They kind of became obsolete. 

But my point in Dividend Cafe that I think is very important for WORLD listeners is to understand disruption can get misunderstood. First of all, when it’s thought about monolithically, as if everything is getting disrupted the same way, all the software companies now are victims of AI self-generating code and are no longer needed—not understanding that some software has greater network effect and switching cost and brand loyalty and service model than others.

And so it isn’t one size fits all. But what I’m trying to get to is that there’s a great opportunity for some companies that could be disrupted by AI to benefit from it by embracing, collaborating, and utilizing it as a tool, as opposed to accepting that the mere existence of new code means that what the company previously did is obsolete.

Now, I’m really heavily referring to the software space here, but the same principles are first principles and therefore should be applied across any sector or industry.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen—founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. He writes at DividendCafe.com and at WORLD Opinions. David, hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next: The World History Book.

It’s the third Monday in April, and that means Boston Marathon day. It’s an event amateur runners aspire to, training for months or years to meet the strict qualifying standards for the 26.2 mile race. Some make multiple attempts before getting into it.

One family name has inspired runners and spectators every year. But back when the family first wanted to race, Boston said no.

WORLD’s Jenny Rough has the story.

AUDIO: [Crowds cheering]

JENNY ROUGH: Between mile 12 and 13 at the Boston Marathon, Troy Hoyt knows what to expect.

TROY HOYT: You can hear it from like a half a mile away. It’s the craziest thing ever. Every year, I’m like, what is that? Oh, yeah, it’s the Scream Tunnel.

The Wellesley Scream Tunnel. The college is near the marathon’s halfway point. Audio from Wellesley Public Media.

AUDIO: [Crowds cheering]

God willing, Troy will finish his sixth Boston Marathon today—carrying on generations of family tradition.

TROY: My grandfather was Dick Hoyt, and my uncle was Rick Hoyt. Now I am currently the race director for Team Hoyt and I’m running for the Hoyt Foundation.

His grandfather, Dick, and his grandmother, Judy, welcomed their first child, Rick, into the world in 1962. But during delivery, the umbilical cord wrapped around their baby boy’s neck. Doctors told the parents to save themselves the heartache and institutionalize him.

Rick’s brother Russ—the couple’s third son—said his parents stood firm:

RUSS: My mother and father obviously said, no way, brought Rick home, and said we are going to raise him.

The Hoyts quickly realized how difficult it would be. The brain damage caused cerebral palsy.

RUSS: And so when they brought him home, they found he couldn’t even nurse. They literally had to put milk in an eyedropper and feed him a drop at a time.

Rick could not speak, either. But the Hoyts could tell he was intelligent.

As the Hoyts’ three sons grew up, Rick’s younger brothers figured out ways to communicate with him using the alphabet. If he nodded at L—

RUSS: And then if he spelled E-T. Let me, you know he could say things like let me play if we were going to go outside and play.

Eventually, a computer gave Rick a way to communicate more directly. The family eagerly anticipated Rick’s first message.

RUSS: Mom thought it was going to be I love you, Mom. Dad thought it was going to be Hi, Dad. It was the early 70s and the Boston Bruins were going for the Stanley Cup. First words Rick ever wrote were Go Bruins!

Rick loved sports. And school. He asked if he could attend like his brothers. The Hoyts had adopted a family motto: Yes, you can. So, he did. Rick’s gym teacher told Rick about a 5-mile road race to raise money for a paralyzed athlete. At home on his computer, Rick wrote: Dad, can I run this race? His dad was not a runner. But again, the three famous words: Yes, you can. His dad pushed Rick the whole way.

RUSS: Dad and Rick went out and they ran their first race together. At the time, the only wheelchair Rick had was a Mulholland, which basically it’s like pushing a shopping cart complete with that one bad wheel that wobbles.

The duo came in second to last. Dick had soreness in muscles he didn’t even know existed. He assumed their first race would also be their last. But back home, Rick typed out another message. Here’s Rick, speaking through his computer, and his dad, in an interview with CBS Boston:

RICK: I wrote, Dad when we are running, my disability seems to disappear.

DICK: When we’re out there running, Rick is the athlete, and I’m just out there loaning him my arms and legs so he is able to compete.

Dick Hoyt became a competitive runner so he could continue to push Rick. Engineers built the duo an aerodynamic wheelchair. They mostly ran 5Ks and 10Ks. Then, in 1980, Rick said he wanted to run the Boston Marathon. It had a wheelchair division, but that was for athletes who could push themselves. Race coordinators told the Hoyts a dad pushing a son did not fit any of their categories.

So the duo ran the course unofficially for two years, then went back to the B-A-A, Boston Athletic Association, and asked, again, to officially enter.

RUSS: Finally, the B.A.A. said, look, if you can qualify, then we’ll put you in. My dad at this time was in his early 40s. And he said, okay, so what’s the qualifying time for 40 to 45? And they said, no, if you’re going to run with your son, you have to qualify at his age. And Rick is 18.

They trained and qualified. In 1983, they could finally run with official bib numbers.

For decades, they raced Boston together. In 1989, the Hoyt family established a foundation. Eventually, Dick and Rick got into triathlons, too. Even the Ironman in Hawaii.

They biked and ran across America.

But the Boston Marathon was always Rick’s favorite. Dick planned to retire after the 2013 race. But they never completed the course. Two bombs detonated at the finish line.

RUSS: They made a decision right there in that moment, no, we’re coming back next year. Nobody’s keeping us off the Boston course. So 2014 was actually their 32nd and last year running the Boston Marathon together.

In 2021, Dick Hoyt died at 80. Two years later, Rick died from multiple bouts of pneumonia.

But Team Hoyt lives on.

Today, more than 20 runners pledged to race Boston as part of it. To earn a bib for the charity team, runners have to raise $13,000. That money goes to individuals with disabilities to participate in all sorts of activities, not just sports, and not just running.

Troy Hoyt, Rick’s nephew, says he plans to take in the experience this year. And even better than general cheers from the Wellesley Scream Tunnel? Hearing the names of his grandfather and uncle:

TROY: It’s legitimately every mile. Someone’s screaming out: Go Team Hoyt! Dick and Rick Hoyt! Let’s go! It’s definitely rewarding for sure.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book, I’m Jenny Rough.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: an update on the economic crisis in Cuba. And, Christian medical students work to stop assisted suicide legislation. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

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 records: “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end. The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you.” —Psalm 102:25–28

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.