Reasonably Speaking

In April 2022, at the invitation of the leadership of The American Law Institute, a group whose members span a range of legal and political views, came together to consider possible Electoral Count Act (ECA) reforms. Despite holding diverse legal, political, and ideological commitments, the group is united by the belief that Congress should reform the ECA before the 2024 presidential election. The group has agreed on several general principles that should guide ECA reform, as well as specific proposals as to what ECA reform should seek to accomplish. Because of the need for quick action, this project has not gone through the typical ALI bicameral process, which requires approval by both our Council and membership, and therefore cannot be considered the official work of the Institute. In this episode of Reasonably Speaking, David F. Levi is joined by the project's co-chairs, Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, who explain the purpose of the project and walk through the General and Specific Principles.This podcast episode is jointly produced by the ALI and the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke about his new book, The Authority of the Court and the Perils of Politics, and his views on judicial decision-making with David F. Levi, director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School and president of The American Law Institute.During the hour-long conversation, Breyer reflects on his 27 years on the Court and discusses the roots of the Court's authority and its relationship to the political branches of government. The power of the Court, he says, resides in the people — in their faith in the institution, their belief in the rule of law, and their understanding that the Court operates outside the political realm. The peril of politics, he says, is that if people begin to see judges as nothing more than ‘junior league politicians' — or as making decisions in order to help a political party or to advance a political agenda — the Court's power will erode, along with the rule of law.He recalls that the Chief Justice of Ghana once asked him where the Supreme Court got its power, and why Americans accept and abide by its decisions. After all, as Alexander Hamilton famously noted, the Court has no military or economic power to enforce its decisions. In considering the question, he offers examples of Court decisions that were not enforced — or were actively subverted — by the government: Worcester v. Georgia found that the states did not have the power to impose law on Native American land, yet President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision and the U.S. government ultimately forced Native American tribes off their land. Similarly, states refused to enforce Brown v. Board of Education, and segregation in schools persisted for years despite various efforts by the federal government to force integration. “I wanted the Chief Justice of Ghana to know that it's not God-given that people would follow what the Court says,” Breyer explains. “If you want a rule of law, if you want it in reality and not on paper, you can't just talk to the judges and you can't just talk to the lawyers. Everybody thinks they want a rule of law. That's how they make their living. But it is the people in the towns, in the villages. Contrary to popular belief, of our 331 million people, 330 million are not lawyers. And they're the ones that have to be convinced that it is in their interest to follow decisions, even when those decisions affect them in a way they don't like, and when those decisions are wrong — because if, after all, it's five to four, somebody's wrong.”But in America today, Breyer says, very controversial decisions are accepted. Consider a decision as contested as Bush v. Gore, he says. There were no shots fired after Bush v. Gore, he notes, because “Americans have reached a point where they don't even think about the decisions of the Court, not following them. They think it's like the air we breathe. People do. And that doesn't happen by magic. That happens by people understanding the country, by living a history, by having examples.”That faith in the Court is risked, however, if the public begins to see the Court as a political actor — a perception that the judiciary must counter, he says. He discusses the differences between political decision-making and judicial decision-making, arguing that while judicial philosophies and personal experiences may influence an individual judge's views, judges must be guided by the law, not political constituents. That doesn't mean, however, that judges don't have differing views of what the Constitution means. “After a while, I began to understand this is a big country, and people think all kinds of different things. And it is not such a terrible thing to have a Supreme Court with nine members where different presidents appoint different judges,” Breyer says. “Ultimately, the country has to suffer from, or rejoice sometimes, or in any case live with the decisions and interpretations of the Court. What Justice Scalia happens to think, or Justice Breyer or Justice O'Connor, about the Constitution is of great interest to many law professors, but not to most people in the United States. It is the Constitution as interpreted by the Court that matters.”Breyer also discusses the power of deliberation and compromise as a way for the Court to generate public trust and as a way to develop and strengthen common values that can bind the country together in times of division — “remembering that the Constitution has as a basic principle — one of the things that I think is most important — is the principle that it works. The principle that this society does hold together, the principle that this society has certain basic values, and they work. . . . That's our society. We pull together in light of those rather basic constitutional ideas.”  

Have you ever wondered what exactly goes into completing an ALI project? There’s nobody better to talk about the ALI process than four veteran Reporters whose projects may be completed at the 2021 Annual Meeting. In this episode of Reasonably Speaking, Reporter on one of our newest projects, Lyrissa Lidsky from Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Defamation and Privacy will moderate the panel of Matthew L.M. Fletcher (American Indian Law), Geoffrey P. Miller (Compliance and Enforcement for Organizations), Kenneth W. Simons (Intentional Torts), and Christiane C. Wendehorst (Principles for a Data Economy), as they discuss their journey from project conception to ALI member approval and completion. They will discuss how they came to be an ALI Reporter, how they work with project Advisers and ALI members, the draft approval process, surprises they learned along the way, and more.

ALI President David F. Levi is joined by three former Solicitors General, Walter E. Dellinger, Donald B. Verrilli, and Seth P. Waxman, to discuss the topic of election litigation and reflect upon the unconventional challenges faced in the 2020 presidential election.

Join us for this episode of Reasonably Speaking where top scholars in U.S. presidency and political science discuss the the history of the U.S. presidency and its future "post–Trump." Moderated by: ALI President David F. LeviPanel:Jack Landman Goldsmith, Harvard Law SchoolDavid M. Kennedy, Stanford UniversityTerry M. Moe, Stanford UniversityDaphna  Renan, Harvard Law School

The treatment of the children in two distinct areas of the law – child welfare and juvenile justice – is fraught with difficulty even under the best of circumstances. But with the onslaught of the COVID pandemic, the regular challenges and the need to protect children have only been compounded.In this episode of Reasonably Speaking, juvenile justice scholar and Chief Reporter of the Restatement of the Law, Children and the Law, Elizabeth Scott guides our Children and the Law-exclusive panel through a series of discussions centering on child advocacy and juvenile law during a pandemic. The panel explores how the law defines parental authority, what rights a child has in custody, how lawyers can best represent a child in the system during a pandemic, and more.Panelists:Kristin Henning, Georgetown University Law CenterClare Huntington, Fordham University School of LawMarsha Levick, Juvenile Law Center

This episode explores the multidistrict litigation (MDL) from their origins to current examples and recommended reforms.When complex issues effect large numbers of people, MDLs are often seen as the most efficient way to consolidate and manage those cases, recent examples include opioids and Roundup.Led by MDL expert and scholar Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, participants will discuss the nuances of MDLs and examine how all involved in the process should never lose sight of the human element in these cases. The panel will also explore the role of the MDL judge and address MDL’s pain points as they relate to appellate opportunities, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and more. The episode will conclude with the panel offering some of their own ideas for reform.Moderator: Elizabeth Chamblee Burch – University of Georgia School of LawPanelists:John H. Beisner – SkaddenAbbe Gluck – Yale Law SchoolShanin Specter – Kline and Specter

The 2020 election is seeing unprecedented volatility leading up to November 3. Will this volatility make a difference, helping or hurting the system’s capacity to serve its purpose? This is the first of many questions about the 2020 election that this group of election law experts will tackle.

Since the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, civil unrest has spread throughout the United States, causing many American citizens to question racial equality in every corner of our society. In this episode we will explore one of those corners, the justice system, to discuss how our courts and judges are addressing the complex topic of racism and racial disparities. The panel also explores racial education programs for federal judges, the disparities in sentencing for Black men in the U.S., and the obligation judges and justices have to provide a justice system that works fairly for all Americans.

This episode will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and whether the Court’s reference to “equitable relief” includes the remedy of “disgorgement.” Douglas Laycock, who filed an amiscus brief in support of neither party, will lead this discussion.

On July 6, the Supreme Court of the United States held that states may replace and even punish “faithless electors,” the term used for a member of the U.S. Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice presidential candidate they pledged to support. This episode will consider the implications of the Court’s ruling and reasoning for a broader set of questions on the Electoral College system and what might happen in this year’s election.

This episode of Coping with COVID shifts attention from one pandemic to another, the plague of excessive force by police officers. This is an old and longstanding problem receiving new attention in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd. Although we have witnessed these atrocities in the past, across the nation, citizens are coming together with a renewed strength to work together to find a solution.

In its April 2020 primary election, Wisconsin experienced serious problems in its absentee balloting processes, which led to a federal court case (RNC v. DNC) that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately resolved on election eve. The problem was that in the face of the current pandemic, the number of voters who requested an absentee ballot overwhelmed the election officials’ ability to get the ballots to the voters in time to cast them. The result was the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, controversy over the federal courts’ ability to remedy this disenfranchisement, and confusion of the voters. But that Supreme Court decision has done little to solve the problem or to reduce the possibility of an analogous controversy in the future. Indeed, this podcast will consider whether the risk of a similar problem in November is every bit as great. For instance, consider the challenge that would confront Pennsylvania – already taxed by having to administer a new mail-in voting law that for the first time will allow any voter to request an absentee ballot – if an outbreak or resurgence of COVID-19 occurs in Philadelphia in the weeks prior to Election Day.

Featuring one of the series of interviews that ALI is conducting as part of ALI’s Oral History Series, in this episode ALI Council Member Kenneth Frazier of Merck is interviewed by Alfred W. Putnam Jr. of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. This interview was conducted on January 22, 2020.

The current public health crisis has raised a variety of new challenges in the workplace. What is the employer's responsibility to keep employees safe? Is an employee able to refuse to work? Can an employee share medical information without adverse consequences? Join us for this episode of Reasonably Speaking when we are joined by lawyers and scholars who are on top of these and other very complex issues of fairness, privacy, safety and the law.

As we saw in the first episode of Season 2, our state and federal courts have adapted much of their work to digital platforms. But some procedures or litigation events do not easily or obviously translate to digital. In this episode, judges and court administrators reveal how procedures and processes that traditionally rely heavily on in-person interactions, such as jury trials or mediations, can be modified to accommodate social distancing. The panel also explores how complex litigation, including multidistrict litigation (MDL), is coping with COVID.

This episode features a previously un-aired portion of the season one episode “Long Road to Hard Truth: The 100 Year Mission to Create the National Museum of African American History and Culture.” On that episode, Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sat down with Judge Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to talk about his book of the same title. During the recording of that episode, Judge Wilkins mentioned a personal experience that he went through in the 1990s, a lawsuit that he filed against the Maryland State Police. This lawsuit ended up being a game changer. Judge Friedman asked Judge Wilkins to share his story, which we now present in this standalone episode.

Don’t miss this episode, as we welcome Katherine Adams, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Apple; Ivan Fong, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary of 3M; Ken Frazier, Chairman and CEO of Merck; and Malini Moorthy, Vice President and Chief Deputy General Counsel of Medtronic, as they discuss how their companies are responding to the COVID crisis.

This episode explores one aspect of our ongoing project, Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Concluding Provisions. Specifically, we'll be discussing medical malpractice.

In this third installment of the “Coping with COVID” series, ALI President David F. Levi is joined by six law school deans to discuss how their schools are adjusting to remote learning, including adapting experimental classes, clinics, and other hands-on courses to the online format. The deans also discuss how law schools are responding to the crisis by adjusting their admissions processes and re-allocating resources, all while maintaining a normal level of scholarly exchange and excitement. The panel also looks ahead to when schools may re-open as well as the effects of the pandemic on students outside of the classroom, including views on summer and permanent positions as well as bar exams.

"Coping with COVID: Legal Services Organizations on the Frontlines" welcomes several accomplished lawyers who lead legal services organizations and who are working hard to assist people with critical legal needs. Our country has long struggled to meet the needs of people who cannot afford legal services and the COVID crisis has only exacerbated these needs. These leaders discuss how they are persevering in their efforts to serve their clients and how the COVID crisis may be providing a push and a path toward long-term improvements in our system.

This is the first installment of a series of episodes on "Coping with COVID." Produced jointly by the Bolch Judicial Institute of Duke Law School and The American Law Institute, this series examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the legal system. Moderated by David F. Levi, ALI President and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute, this episode features top state and federal judges as they discuss how our courts are meeting the challenge of continuing to administer our justice system during this crisis.

In this episode, we spend time with Paul D. Clement, who served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008. Before his confirmation as Solicitor General, he served as Acting Solicitor General for nearly a year and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General for over three years. He has argued nearly 100 cases before the United States Supreme Court. The American Law Institute would like to thank Oyez for excerpted portions of Supreme Court oral arguments. This material is released under the Creative Commons license. Oyez is a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law. Listeners may learn more about Oyez or listen to full oral arguments online at oyez.org.

Consent is a concept at the center of criminal law and sexual assault. So, why is it so difficult to accurately define? Sexual assault laws have evolved from requiring the victim to resist toward requiring consent. However, “consent” is defined in many ways. In this episode, two experts on the topic, Criminal Law Professor Aya Gruber and AEquitas Co-Founder and CEO Jennifer Long, discuss and debate the potential for success and failure of implementing an “affirmative consent” requirement, how we now understand that there is no expected behavior during or after a sexual assault, and how important is to treat every case individually.

Colleges and universities face special challenges in designing and implementing procedures to respond to campus sexual and gender-based misconduct, while maintaining an academic community with equal educational opportunities for all students. In this episode Suzanne Goldberg, Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and Executive Vice President for University Life at Columbia University, and Gil Sparks, member and past Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Delaware, discuss what schools are doing to implement procedures that are both effective and fair for those who have suffered from such misconduct and for those accused.

Board members, business owners, employees, and even customers should all be interested in a company’s compliance policies and adherence to them. Why? Because there is much at stake. Join us for this episode when we ask two compliance experts about the greatest challenges in creating a strong compliance program and establishing a corporate culture that supports it. We welcome Ivan Fong, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel at 3M. In 2018, 3M was named to Forbes’ list of Most Reputable Companies, Ethisphere’s list of World’s Most Ethical Companies, and Glassdoor’s list of Best Places to Work, among other honors. We are also pleased to have Lori Martin, Partner at WilmerHale, join us. Lori has an extensive compliance practice, where she helps numerous clients audit and strengthen their current compliance programs.

On this episode, Judge Paul Friedman of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia sits down with Judge Robert Wilkins of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to talk about his book Long Road to Hard Truth: The 100 Year Mission to Create the National Museum of African American History and Culture. As his book title indicates, attempts and failures to build a museum dedicated to African American history date back more than 100 years. Judge Wilkins played an integral role in making the museum a reality.

Consumer contracts are everywhere. The number of contracts you enter into today may surprise you. Most of the contracts you enter into no longer involve a pen and paper. Purchasing a morning coffee, visiting a website, or scheduling a delivery are just a few daily transactions that more often than not include contract terms.

In part two of this two-part episode, Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Barry Friedman, New York University Law professor and director of NYU’s Policing Project, and John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation continue the discussion about the intersection of race and policing in the United States. The application of new technologies and the danger of doing so without oversight is discussed, as well as some suggestions about what everyone can do to make a positive difference, whether a lawyer, police officer, community leader, or concerned citizen.

In part one of this two-part episode, Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Barry Friedman, New York University Law professor and director of NYU’s Policing Project, and John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation begin their exploration of the intersection of race and policing in the United States. They discuss history of race relations in the U.S., and the resulting impact on law enforcement practices; the role of first responders, and if police officers are the right people to fill that role; and implementing effective training programs.

From start to finish, criminal and tort cases differ in many ways, including how a case is initiated, in which court it is heard and decided, standards of proof, and the consequence if the defendant is found liable (punishment if defendant is convicted of a crime; payment of money damages if defendant is liable for a tort). Some cases [or fact patterns] qualify as both crimes and torts. These differences are especially evident in sexual assault claims where a single legal term, such as “consent,” may be defined quite differently, depending on the type of legal claim asserted.

In this episode, renowned experts on American Indian law and policy, Matthew Fletcher and Wenona Singel, discuss the nuanced and highly complex field of American Indian Law. Matthew and Wenona begin by exploring the history of tribal sovereignty, and discuss the rights of American Indians as both tribal citizens and U.S. citizens. We then explore jurisdiction across border lines, particularly in a criminal context. Matthew and Wenona discuss the history of violence against native women, and why, until recently, prosecution has been so difficult. The history of and current U.S. court challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act are also examined.

In this episode, Juvenile Law Center’s Co-Founder Marsha Levick and Columbia Law Professor Elizabeth Scott discuss the vulnerability of children when they enter the justice system. Marsha and Elizabeth agree that much has improved since the “adult time for adult crime” 1990s mentality – today youth are recognized as developmentally different from adults, and with care, may be more easily rehabilitated. However, they argue that there are still improvements to be made, and the problems become obvious when you look at statistics comparing the race of children entering the system.

How does one prepare, and what is it like to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court? In this episode, Douglas Laycock, an experienced Supreme Court advocate himself, moderates an insightful conversation between two prominent Supreme Court appellate lawyers. Former Solicitor General Seth Waxman of WilmerHale and former Assistant to the Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown share their personal experiences as well as their unique insight into the nation’s highest court.

The death penalty in the United States, both new convictions and executions, has declined through recent decades. In this episode, we explore the history of the death penalty and the various factors that are contributing to this decline. Death penalty expert and author of End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice, Brandon Garrett, talks about this history and the revealing details of his data collection on the demise of capital punishment. We are also joined by ALI’s past President Roberta Cooper Ramo and former Judge Christine Durham, who discuss ALI’s removal of the Death Penalty from the Model Penal Code, perhaps one of the earliest indications of the future of capital punishment. The History of the U.S. Death Penalty [04:00] ALI and the decision to remove the death penalty from the Model Penal Code [24:00] Reasons for the death penalty’s decline [43:00] Race and the death penalty [46:00] The future of the death penalty

In this episode, Judge Goodwin Liu of the California Supreme Court talks to Judge Jeffrey Sutton about the distinct yet parallel importance of the State Court systems and the Federal Court system, including how we came to value so highly the federal system; why we should pay more attention to our state courts and constitutions; and what we as citizens, educators, and advocates should do going forward.