Podcasts about American Law Institute

From April 12, 2024: The Insurrection Act is a provision that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. It's been invoked dozens of times by presidents to respond to crises in the over 230 years that it's been around, but it hasn't been reformed in centuries. In recent years, the Insurrection Act has come back into public focus because of its implication in a number of domestic crises, prompting a renewed conversation about whether it's finally time to curb the sweeping powers afforded to the executive in this unique federal law.On April 8, the American Law Institute released a set of principles for Insurrection Act reform, prepared by a group of 10 individuals with backgrounds in constitutional law, national security law, and military law. The co-chairs of this group were Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare Co-Founder and Harvard Law School Professor, and Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law. They joined Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han to talk about the history of the Insurrection Act, to parse out the recommendations the American Law Institute is making for reform, and to make the case for reforming the act in 2024.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kevin Werbach interviews Dale Cendali, one of the country's leading intellectual property (IP) attorneys, to discuss how courts are grappling with copyright questions in the age of generative AI. Over 30 lP awsuits already filed against major generative AI firms, and the outcomes may shape the future of AI as well as creative industries. While we couldn't discuss specifics of one of the most talked-about cases, Thomson Reuters v. ROSS -- because Cendali is litigating it on behalf of Thomson Reuters -- she drew on her decades of experience in IP law to provide an engaging look at the legal battlefield and the prospects for resolution.  Cendali breaks down the legal challenges around training AI on copyrighted materials—from books to images to music—and explains why these cases are unusually complex for copyright law. She discusses the recent US Copyright Office report on Generative AI training, what counts as infringement in AU outputs, and what is sufficient human authorship for copyirght protection of AI works. While precedent offers some guidance, Cendali notes that outcomes will depend heavily on the specific facts of each case. The conversation also touches on how well courts can adapt existing copyright law to these novel technologies, and the prospects for a legislative solution. Dale Cendali is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, where she leads the firm's nationwide copyright, trademark, and internet law practice. She has been named one of the 25 Icons of IP Law and one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America. She also serves as an advisor to the American Law Institute's Copyright Restatement project and sits on the Board of the International Trademark Association. Transcript Thompson Reuters Wins Key Fair Use Fight With AI Startup Dale Cendali - 2024 Law360 MVP Copyright Office Report on Generative AI Training

Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional and national security law. His award-winning scholarship has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, and Harvard Law Review, and he has written popular essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and Guardian. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project. His latest book, co-written with David Noll, is VIGILANTE NATION: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens our Democracy Is what Donald Trump's doing in LA with the National Guard and the Marines legal? Constitutional? And what happens next? Who ultimately will win this consequential national showdown between Gov. Gavin Newsom and Trump. Jon answers these questions and more. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

This week's show is sponsored by: EPIC-MRA Public Opinion Research MIRS News Fulton Fish Market

Deborah Archer is a tenured professor and Associate Dean at New York University School of Law. She is also the president of the ACLU and a nationally recognized expert on civil liberties, civil rights, and racial justice. She is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Law Institute, and an award-winning teacher and legal scholar. Before full-time teaching, she worked as an attorney with the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., where she litigated voting rights, employment discrimination, and school desegregation. She previously served as chair of the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, the nation's oldest and largest police oversight agency. Deborah is the author of the new book Dividing Lines: How Transportation Infrastructure Reinforces Racial Inequality. Deborah and I discuss her new book and how the ACLU is addressing unconstitutional actions of Trump 2.0. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

This discussion provides an overview of fundamental concepts in real property law. They explain different types of ownership interests, including fee simple estates, outlining the rights associated with owning land and attached structures. The texts also discuss how property interests are transferred, covering topics like deeds, mortgages as security interests, and recording statutes. Furthermore, they explore nonpossessory interests in property, such as easements, covenants, and servitudes, which affect how land can be used, alongside the government's power of eminent domain and the restrictions imposed by zoning laws. The sources highlight the legal doctrines and procedures surrounding these concepts.TakeawaysNon-possessory rights include easements, profits, and covenants.Easements allow use of another's land; profits allow resource extraction.Covenants can be real or equitable, affecting enforcement options.The Restatement Third of Property aims to unify property interests under servitudes.Moral obligation to keep promises is a key reason for enforcing covenants.Dead hand control concerns arise with perpetual restrictions.Traditionally, courts favored enforcing easements over real covenants and equitable servitudes. The American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of the Law of Property unified these concepts under the term "servitudes" to simplify and rationalize the law.A prospective owner could purchase the property at its lower, encumbered market price and simultaneously negotiate and pay the holder of the servitude an amount to release it. This allows the purchaser to acquire the property free of the restriction.The two essential conditions are that the property must be used for a "public purpose only," and the property owner must be "compensated at fair market value."Inverse condemnation is an action initiated by a property owner when government regulation is so substantial that it effectively amounts to a taking, even without formal condemnation proceedings. Direct eminent domain is the government explicitly using its power to take private property.The "bundle of rights" concept views property ownership not as a single right, but as multiple distinct rights that can be held separately. Key rights include the right to possess, use, exclude others, enjoy benefits, and transfer interests. (Any two of these are acceptable).Fee simple is an estate of indefinite duration in real property that can be freely transferred. It is considered the most common and absolute type of estate, granting the owner the greatest discretion over the property's disposal.An estate for years is a leasehold that endures for a fixed, predetermined period and ends automatically without notice. A periodic tenancy endures for successive intervals (e.g., month to month) until properly terminated by notice equal to the length of the period (or as prescribed by statute).In most jurisdictions, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable efforts to re-let vacated premises if a tenant wrongfully abandons the lease. This duty is to reduce the landlord's losses and prevent them from allowing the property to remain empty while still suing for the full rent owed.Adverse possession is a legal doctrine allowing a trespasser to acquire valid title to land by occupying it in a continuous, exclusive, open, notorious, and hostile manner for a statutory period. The public policy motivation is to reward productive land use, quiet title disputes, and resolve boundary issues, discouraging neglected property.A grant deed is written proof that the property title is owned free and clear of claims or liens and promises that the property hasn't been sold to anyone else. A quitclaim deed transfers whatever interest the grantor has in the property, without making any warranties or guarantees about the title.property law, non-possessory interests, easements, covenants, eminent domain, legal concepts, law students, property rights, zoning, land use

Today's podcast show features a discussion with Professor Gregory Klass of Georgetown University Law School about an article he co-authored with Professor Ian Ayres, entitled “How to Use the Restatement of Consumer Contracts: A Guide for Judges.” The article will be published this year in the Harvard Business Law Review (vol 15), and is available here. The abstract of the article states: “In the absence of major legislation or regulatory action, U.S. consumers will continue to look to courts and the common law for protection when businesses engage in unfair and deceptive contracting practices. In May 2022, the American Law Institute approved the Restatement of the Law, Consumer Contracts. This new Restatement provides a valuable resource for courts tasked with deciding the legal effects of standard terms that businesses draft and consumers do not read. This essay identifies six pieces of the new Restatement we believe courts should pay special attention to and discusses the importance of each. It also charts several ways courts might go beyond the new Restatement to protect consumers against abusive contracting practices. Unless and until legislators and regulators step in, U.S. courts should continue to reshape the common law to address risks that new technologies of contracting create.” We discuss the following questions related to this Restatement: The history and scope of the Restatement of Consumer Contracts project Why was there perceived to be a need for a separate restatement for consumer contract law when there has been a Restatement of Contracts for many decades? Was it wise to publish a Restatement of Consumer Contracts as opposed to a Statement of Principles since the document to a large extent focuses on what the law should be, rather than on what the law is? The identification of several parts of the Restatement to which Professor Klass believes the courts should pay special attention: a.      The “reasonable expectations” rule in Section 4; b.     The unconscionability defense in Section 6; c.      The deception defense in Section 7; and, d.      The Parol Evidence rule Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.  

Jody reviews a recent Special Communication from JAMA about a 2024 update of medical malpractice standards from the American Law Institute.Reference:Aaron DG, Robertson CT, King LP, Sage WM. A New Legal Standard for Medical Malpractice. JAMA. Published online February 26, 2025. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.0097

Speaker: Professor Margo Bagley, Emory University School of Law Abstract: 2024 was a year for multilateral IP like no other. WIPO Member states adopted two new treaties last year: the WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. Both were groundbreaking in their mention of one or more of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and indigenous peoples and local communities, none of which are standard IP topics and all of which have been controversial additions to the normative work at WIPO. Moreover, both treaties address disclosure of origin for one or more of these controversial areas, another first for a WIPO treaty. I will discuss how these two treaties came to fruition and their ramifications for future multilateral IP treaty-making.Biography: Margo A. Bagley is Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. She returned to Emory in 2016 after ten years at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she held the Hardy Cross Dillard chair. She was the Hieken Visiting Professor in Patent Law at Harvard Law School in Fall 2022. Her scholarship focuses on comparative issues relating to patents and biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and access to medicines, and IP and social justice issues. Professor Bagley served on two National Academies Committees on IP matters, is a technical expert to the African Union in World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) matters, and has served as a consultant to several United Nations organizations. She has served as a US Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development Program advisor and currently serves as a member of the U.S. DARPA ELSI Team for the BRACE project. She is an elected member of the American Law Institute and a faculty lecturer with the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, and also has taught patent related courses in China, Cuba, Israel, and Singapore. She has published numerous articles, book chapters, and monographs as well as two books with co-authors with a third on the way. She is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, practiced patent law with both Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, and Smith, Gambrell and Russell, and has been an expert witness in several patent cases. A chemical engineer by training, Professor Bagley worked in industry for several years before attending law school at Emory where she was a Woodruff Fellow. She is a co-inventor on patents on peanut butter and bedding technology. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Margo Bagley, Emory University School of Law Abstract: 2024 was a year for multilateral IP like no other. WIPO Member states adopted two new treaties last year: the WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. Both were groundbreaking in their mention of one or more of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and indigenous peoples and local communities, none of which are standard IP topics and all of which have been controversial additions to the normative work at WIPO. Moreover, both treaties address disclosure of origin for one or more of these controversial areas, another first for a WIPO treaty. I will discuss how these two treaties came to fruition and their ramifications for future multilateral IP treaty-making.Biography: Margo A. Bagley is Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. She returned to Emory in 2016 after ten years at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she held the Hardy Cross Dillard chair. She was the Hieken Visiting Professor in Patent Law at Harvard Law School in Fall 2022. Her scholarship focuses on comparative issues relating to patents and biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and access to medicines, and IP and social justice issues. Professor Bagley served on two National Academies Committees on IP matters, is a technical expert to the African Union in World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) matters, and has served as a consultant to several United Nations organizations. She has served as a US Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development Program advisor and currently serves as a member of the U.S. DARPA ELSI Team for the BRACE project. She is an elected member of the American Law Institute and a faculty lecturer with the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, and also has taught patent related courses in China, Cuba, Israel, and Singapore. She has published numerous articles, book chapters, and monographs as well as two books with co-authors with a third on the way. She is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, practiced patent law with both Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, and Smith, Gambrell and Russell, and has been an expert witness in several patent cases. A chemical engineer by training, Professor Bagley worked in industry for several years before attending law school at Emory where she was a Woodruff Fellow. She is a co-inventor on patents on peanut butter and bedding technology. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

In 2024, the American Law Institute revised the legal standard for assessing medical negligence. Author Christopher T. Robertson, JD, PhD, of Boston University School of Law joins JAMA Executive Editor Gregory Curfman, MD, to discuss these changes in the first-ever restatement of the law. Related Content: A New Legal Standard for Medical Malpractice Another Medical Malpractice Crisis?

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Land Back is an Indigenous-led movement focused on returning land to Indigenous Tribes in a way that strengthens Indigenous sovereignty and communities. This episode features a discussion about how Land Back comes up in the context of estate planning and introduces key concepts for estate planners, financial advisors, and tax advisors to assist clients in taking suchaction.About Our Guests:Alma Soongi Beck is an attorney in  Lathrop GPM Private Client Services Practice Groups. Beck is certified as a specialist in estate planning, trust, and probate law by the State Board of Legal Specialization, and her practice focuses on trusts, charitable planning, gift and estate tax planning, and post-death administration including trust administration and probate. She speaks regularly on estate planning issues affecting LGBTQ+ and unmarried couples, on the evolution of gender and parentage in estate planning and administration, and on Land Back to Indigenous Tribes. She has previously served on the boards of the Transgender Law Center, Our Family Coalition, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF) and the Korean American Bar Association of Northern California (KABANC). Prior to joining Lathrop GPM (formerly Hopkins & Carley), Alma was a partner at Lakin Spears, LLP, as well as founder and principal attorney for The Beck Law Group, P.C. A Korean American child of immigrants, Beck had led workshops on implicit bias for legal professionals, college students, and climate organizations since the 1990s, most recently for the Climate Reality Project Bay Area Chapter. Jo Carrillo JD/JSD is Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Indigenous Law Center (ILC) at UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings). For over three decades, Carrillo has taught and written extensively in property and property-related subjects, including Federal Indian Law. Carrillo earned her BA from Stanford University, her JD from the University of New Mexico, and her JSD from Stanford Law School. She is a member of the Order of the Coif, the American Law Institute, and a former Trustee of the Law & Society Association; she was aVisiting Scholar at The Center for the Study of Law & Society at UC Berkeley Law, and a Visiting Professor at Stanford Law School. As Faculty Director of the UC Law Indigenous Law Center, Carrillo facilitates a seminar series called Law &. This series brings lawyers, students, and California Tribal leaders into the law school classroom to discuss land back and land stewardship issues. Recently, again with assistance from the Resources Legacy Fund, Carrillo has undertaken to study land back transfer documents. Carrillo has served on the UC Law SF Legacy Committee. She now serves on the UC Law SF Restorative Justice Advisory Board, which counsels UC Law SF Chancellor and Dean David Faigman on decanal initiated restorative justice efforts for Indigenous communities in California. As a long-term project, Carrillo is co-editing a volume, with UCLA Professor of History Benjamin Madley, on redressing 19 th century state sponsored harms against California Indigenous Peoples..About Our Host:Erika Gasaway is a trust and estate litigation partner who was fomerly with Hopkins Carley, which is now LathropGPM. She is on the nationwide Private Client Services team and co-chairs the Trust & Estate Litigation Task Force. She is based in San Jose, California where she represents ultra-high and high net worth families, fiduciaries, and family offices to resolve disputes as various phases of their life cycles. Erika is a member of the California Lawyer's Association Trust and Estate Section's Executive Committee (“TEXCOM”).Thank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Todd Gajdusek and Cat Hammons

Jon Michaels is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. His scholarly and teaching interests include constitutional law, administrative law, national security law, the separation of powers, presidential power, regulation, bureaucracy, and privatization. Michaels is a graduate of Williams College, Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, and Yale Law School, where he served as an articles editor for the Yale Law Journal. Michaels clerked first for Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court. Immediately prior to his appointment at UCLA, Michaels worked as an associate in Arnold & Porter's National Security Law and Public Policy Group in Washington, DC. A two-time winner of the American Constitution Society's Cudahy Award for scholarly excellence in administrative law and an elected member of the American Law Institute, Michaels has written essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Foreign Affairs, Time Magazine, and the Guardian. He is a frequent legal affairs commentator for national and local media outlets. His 2017 book, Constitutional Coup: Privatization's Threat to the American Republic, was published by Harvard University Press. Michaels's second book, titled Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy will be published by Simon & Schuster/Atria in October 2024.

Episode 92 The Fifth CourtSir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales and ELI Vice-President who attended the European Law Institute (ELI) conference in Dublin.Established in 2011, the ELI emulates the American Law Institute and focuses on advancing all areas of law across Europe and beyond. As the premier Institute of its kind in Europe, ELI brings together over 1,700 jurists – including academics, judges, and practitioners – to enhance legal systems through collaborative projects.Sir Geoffrey Vos was appointed as Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales. In this office, he is President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and leads the delivery and development of civil justice across the jurisdiction. He also has statutory responsibility in relation to the National Archives.Until 10 January 2021, he was Chancellor of the High Court, in charge of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. Between 2015 and 2016, he was President of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary and has been active for many years on behalf of the judiciary of England and Wales in international relations in Europe and beyond.He is an Honorary Fellow of Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge. He is Keeper of the Black Books at Lincoln's Inn. He has had a lifelong interest in social mobility and was Chairman of the Social Mobility Foundation between 2008 and 2011.He was Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales in 2007. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional and national security law. His award-winning scholarship has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, and Harvard Law Review, and he has written popular essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and Guardian. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court clerk, Jon is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project. His latest book, co-written with David Noll, is VIGILANTE NATION: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens our Democracy. Jon and I discuss his new book and the increasing use of vigilantism by the Republican Party and red states in targeting vulnerable groups in America to influence cultural, legal and political outcomes. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

On episode 222, we welcome Jon Michaels and David Noll to discuss the alliance between vigilante groups and governments in the US, the four types of vigilantism and how they affect our lives, how vigilante groups utilize state laws to limit freedom of movement, the roots of vigilantism in the slavery era, the argument of individual liberty as a veil for tyranny, and the societal effects of the merger between business interests and right-wing cultural warriors. Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional, administrative, and national-security law. His award-winning scholarship has been published in The Yale Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, and the Harvard Law Review; his popular essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, and The Forward. A Yale Law graduate and former Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute, serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project, and is a faculty affiliate of UCLA's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. His first book, Constitutional Coup, was published by Harvard University Press. David Noll is the associate dean for faculty research and development and a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. His scholarly writings on civil procedure, complex litigation, and administrative law have appeared in the California Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review, among others, and his popular writing has appeared in venues including The New York Times, Politico, Slate, and the New York Law Journal. A graduate of Columbia University and New York University School of Law, Noll is an academic fellow of the National Institute for Civil Justice. He clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. | Jon Michaels and David Noll | ► Website | http://www.jondmichaels.com/about ► Twitter 1| https://x.com/davidlnoll ► Twitter 2 | https://x.com/JonDMichaels ► Bluesky | https://bsky.app/profile/david.noll.org ► Vigilante Nation Book | https://amzn.to/3zEjQvM Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

In this conversation, we dive into key issues shaping the legal landscape today: the complexities of constitutional interpretation, the evolving role and power of the judiciary, and how corruption can impact government systems. We also explored the critical role that civic education plays in maintaining a healthy democracy. Julia D. Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law and the Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Property Law. Her recent scholarship includes articles on government takings of property, the classical legal tradition in education, and feminism and common good constitutionalism. A graduate of the Yale Law School, she is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the Board of Advisors of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Show Notes: A Common Good Constitutional Feminism, Julia Mahoney. Law and Liberty | August 2022 Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this conversation, we dive into key issues shaping the legal landscape today: the complexities of constitutional interpretation, the evolving role and power of the judiciary, and how corruption can impact government systems. We also explored the critical role that civic education plays in maintaining a healthy democracy. Julia D. Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law and the Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Property Law. Her recent scholarship includes articles on government takings of property, the classical legal tradition in education, and feminism and common good constitutionalism. A graduate of the Yale Law School, she is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the Board of Advisors of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Show Notes: A Common Good Constitutional Feminism, Julia Mahoney. Law and Liberty | August 2022 Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In this conversation, we dive into key issues shaping the legal landscape today: the complexities of constitutional interpretation, the evolving role and power of the judiciary, and how corruption can impact government systems. We also explored the critical role that civic education plays in maintaining a healthy democracy. Julia D. Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law and the Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Property Law. Her recent scholarship includes articles on government takings of property, the classical legal tradition in education, and feminism and common good constitutionalism. A graduate of the Yale Law School, she is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the Board of Advisors of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Show Notes: A Common Good Constitutional Feminism, Julia Mahoney. Law and Liberty | August 2022 Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this conversation, we dive into key issues shaping the legal landscape today: the complexities of constitutional interpretation, the evolving role and power of the judiciary, and how corruption can impact government systems. We also explored the critical role that civic education plays in maintaining a healthy democracy. Julia D. Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law and the Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Property Law. Her recent scholarship includes articles on government takings of property, the classical legal tradition in education, and feminism and common good constitutionalism. A graduate of the Yale Law School, she is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the Board of Advisors of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Show Notes: A Common Good Constitutional Feminism, Julia Mahoney. Law and Liberty | August 2022 Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In this conversation, we dive into key issues shaping the legal landscape today: the complexities of constitutional interpretation, the evolving role and power of the judiciary, and how corruption can impact government systems. We also explored the critical role that civic education plays in maintaining a healthy democracy. Julia D. Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law and the Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Property Law. Her recent scholarship includes articles on government takings of property, the classical legal tradition in education, and feminism and common good constitutionalism. A graduate of the Yale Law School, she is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the Board of Advisors of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Show Notes: A Common Good Constitutional Feminism, Julia Mahoney. Law and Liberty | August 2022 Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In this conversation, we dive into key issues shaping the legal landscape today: the complexities of constitutional interpretation, the evolving role and power of the judiciary, and how corruption can impact government systems. We also explored the critical role that civic education plays in maintaining a healthy democracy. Julia D. Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law and the Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Property Law. Her recent scholarship includes articles on government takings of property, the classical legal tradition in education, and feminism and common good constitutionalism. A graduate of the Yale Law School, she is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the Board of Advisors of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Show Notes: A Common Good Constitutional Feminism, Julia Mahoney. Law and Liberty | August 2022 Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We interview Leo Strine on the purpose of the corporation, differentiating between shareholder primacy and stakeholder theory. We discuss ESG and the power of stockholders and workers. Leo Strine applies his perspective on corporate purpose to corporate acquisitions and lays out his hopes for the future of corporations. Some critical articles to learn more about the shareholder primacy vs stakeholder theory debate:Origins of the argument: - Merrick Dodd, For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?, 45 HARV. L. REV. 1145 (1932) - Adolph A. Berle, Jr., For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note, 45 HARV.. L. REV. 1365, 1372 (1932)Shareholder primacy ownership argument: - Milton Friedman, A Friedman doctrine– The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, N.Y. Times, Sept. 13 1970.Critique on shareholder primacy: - Lynn A. Stout, Bad and Not-so-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy, 75 S. CAL. L. REV. 1189 (2002).Example of Application: - Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita, The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance. 106 Corn. L. Rev. 91 (2020).Example of Court Case Application: - Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, 177 (Del. 1986)A bit about Leo Strine:Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Prior to joining the firm, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019.  Before becoming the Chief Justice, he served on the Delaware Court of Chancery as Chancellor since June 22, 2011, and as a Vice Chancellor since November 9, 1998.In his judicial positions, Mr. Strine wrote hundreds of opinions in the areas of corporate law, contract law, trusts and estates, criminal law, administrative law, and constitutional law.  Notably, he authored the lead decision in the Delaware Supreme Court case holding that Delaware's death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it did not require the key findings necessary to impose a death sentence to be made by a unanimous jury.For a generation, Mr. Strine taught various corporate law courses at the Harvard and University of Pennsylvania law schools, and now serves as the Michael L. Wachter Distinguished Fellow in Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Program on Corporate Governance. From 2006 to 2019, Mr. Strine served as the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Corporate Laws. He also was the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Mergers & Acquisitions from 2014 to 2019. He is a member of the American Law Institute.Mr. Strine speaks and writes frequently on the subjects of corporate and public law, and particularly the impact of business on society, and his articles have been published in The University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Stanford Law Review, among others.  On several occasions, his articles were selected as among the Best Corporate and Securities Articles of the year, based on the choices of law professors.Before becoming a judge in 1998,  Mr. Strine served as Counsel and Policy Director to Governor Thomas R. Carper, and had also worked as a corporate litigator at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom from 1990 to 1992.  He was law clerk to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Chief Judge John F. Gerry of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Mr. Strine graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law Sc

It's time to reform the Supreme Court. The founders would not recognize the modern incarnation of what Alexander Hamilton called “the least dangerous” branch. The Court wields far more power on far more issues than it did in the 18th century. And it does so in the absence of adequate checks and balances. The individual justices hold this power longer than they ever have. For the first 180 years of U.S. history, justices served an average of approximately 15 years. In recent years, justices have served an average of 26 years. Momentum for reform is growing. Numerous polls have shown overwhelming bipartisan support for term limits and an enforceable code of ethics. The president and vice president have both announced their support for real change. Listen to this discussion from August 13th with Supreme Court experts to talk about what exactly these proposals entail and what they would mean for American democracy.  Speakers: Cristina Rodríguez, Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Diane Wood, Circuit Judge (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Director, American Law Institute; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School Alicia Bannon, Director, Judiciary Program, Brennan Center for Justice; Editor in Chief, State Court Report Moderator: Michael Waldman, President, Brennan Center; Member, Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Produced with support from the Kohlberg Center on the U.S. Supreme Court Please give us a boost by liking, subscribing, and sharing with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a 5-star rating. You can keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing: https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing

Before he became a trial lawyer, Colorado lawyer Kurt Zaner wanted to be an actor. But rather than just play a role, Kurt decided that he wanted to be a real-world champion and decided to become a trial lawyer. Now, Kurt applies lessons about presence, storytelling and drama from the stage to help achieve landmark verdicts for his clients. Join Ben for his wide-ranging discussion with Kurt that covers how a trial lawyer can use acting skills to enhance courtroom impact; strategies that have enabled Kurt to achieve several eight-figure verdicts against considerable odds; and even what modern day lawyers can learn from reading Cicero. About Kurt Zanerhttps://zanerhardenlaw.com/ Kurt Zaner has dedicated his legal career to representing folks against the modern-day Goliaths. In battling corporations that refuse to take responsibility, Kurt enjoys the challenge of standing up for people that seemingly have the odds overwhelmingly stacked against them.A sought-after national speaker, Kurt frequently lectures on his winning trial techniques, effective legal writing strategies, and iconic discovery tactics that force top-value settlements.  Kurt has secured the largest premises liability verdict in the history of Colorado ($16,000,000.00).He has appeared on Good Morning America, World News Tonight, and every local media outlet including the Denver Post and local CBS, ABC, and Fox affiliates.  He is a published author of Federal and State case law, including Colorado law establishing the right to punitive damages for victims of drunk drivers; he also authored legal articles on distracted driving as well as articles on ancient Roman trial methods.As a trained stage actor, Kurt credits much of his trial success to his theatrical training in college and in Los Angeles prior to law school.After graduating law school near the top of his class and receiving the American Bar Association's and American Law Institute's Best Graduate Award – awarded to the one student of the graduating class who best represents a combination of scholarship and leadership – Kurt went on to clerk for United States District Judge Ken Marra.Working side by side with a Federal Judge on one of the largest caseloads in the country, Kurt learned the art of persuasive advocacy both through legal writing and courtroom theatrics.Most importantly, he learned how cases are won from behind the bench.Prior to co-founding Zaner Harden Law, LLP, Kurt practiced with some of the best-known trial lawyers in the country.  Kurt has successfully represented hundreds of clients across the State of Colorado, trying and winning cases at every level of Colorado State Court, including several million and multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements.In 2017 he and his partner were recognized as having two of the largest verdicts of the year across all practice areas, including a 1,700,000.00 verdict against an oil company's distracted driver as well as a $2,500,000 verdict against a drunk driver that killed his client's son and then fled the scene.This drunk driving verdict landed on the front page of the Denver Post as the community was fed up with these kinds of reckless drivers avoiding accountability by running away.Kurt defended this verdict all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court. In 2018, Kurt secured the largest premises liability verdict in the history of Colorado – $16,000,000.00 in Boulder for a father of three who was diagnosed with the crippling neurological condition CRPS after a temporary electrical box exploded.A few years later, Kurt secured a verdict on another electrocution case where his client also developed CRPS, with a Denver jury delivering a $10,600,000.00 verdict (with interest).  A year after that, Kurt secured a $4,300,000.00 verdict for a client hurt in a trucking crash.No matter how big or small the case, Kurt takes great pride in helping those that entrust their most significant legal problems to his law firm.Kurt is very active in the Trial Lawyer community, both locally and nationally. Locally, he was recently elected to the Board of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association (CTLA) for his fifth consecutive year and serves on several committees.Nationally, after serving as President of the New Lawyers Division for the American Association of Justice (the 5,000 member NLD division of the most pre-eminent national trial lawyer organization in the Country), Kurt now serves on the Budget Committee of the entire 20,000-member organization as well as the Board of Governors.He also acts as a certified End Distracted Driving (EndDD Program) presenter, donating his time in high school classrooms in Colorado educating the next generation of drivers on the dangers of distracted driving.Kurt is invited to speak across the country on novel legal strategies and methods that he has developed – techniques that have resulted in unprecedented successful results for his clients.He has been a regular speaker for the American Association of Justice, having spoken in Boston, Palm Springs, Denver, Los Angeles, and Montreal on a variety of topics including trial techniques, writing strategies, and insurance bad faith. He also speaks regularly for Trial Lawyers University (formerly Trojan Horse) as well as The National Trial Lawyers' national trial seminars.On the State level, Mr. Zaner regularly teaches for the Colorado Trial Lawyers at their state convention, statewide CLEs, and for CTLA's new lawyer bootcamps,He has also spoken at several State Seminars around the Country, including the prestigious Arkansas Trial Lawyers College on one of his favorite topics: transplanting 2,000-year-old trial techniques from the Roman trial lawyer Cicero and demonstrating how they can be effective in today's trials.When not practicing law, Mr. Zaner spends much of his time with his wife and two young boys, outdoors in the mountains or on the stage in a local theater production.Licensed in Florida and Colorado. PublicationsWarembourg v. Excel, 471 P.3d 1213 (Co. Ct. App. 2020) – 63-page, 3-0 published opinion that affirmed the firm's record-breaking 16-million-dollar electrocution verdict.  This opinion creates significant new law in the area of spoliation of evidence, setting new standards for when parties must hold onto evidence and how they may be punished if they do not preserve such evidence (blessing an irrebuttable presumption of liability and causation punitive sanction).  Case settled for 15.7 million shortly after this opinion.“Lessons From Cicero” – Good Counsel, April 2017Alhilo v. Kleim, 413 P.3d 902 (Co. Ct. App. 2016), cert denied (Colo. June 26, 2017) – published opinion that affirmed the firm's multi-million dollar motorcycle verdict and created helpful case law for victims of drunk drivers (allowing for prior DUIs to come in as evidence) and for those who have lost loved ones in a wrongful death case (clarifying the damage cap to afford survivors the maximum benefit).Spotlight, “Overcoming Liability Roadblocks in Bicycle Accident Case” American Association for Justice, Trial Edition (July 2015)“Sad But Preventable – a Trial Lawyer's Quest to End Distracted Driving and Save Lives” The Colorado Trial Lawyers' Association publication Trial Talk, Volume 62, Issue 3, April/May 2013 publication at p. 26 (sole author).“Driving While on the Cell Phone; Punitive Damage Awards Should Come Through Loud and Clear” ABA's The Brief, Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. Sec., Summer 2007, Vol. 35, No.4 (co-author), republished in The Colorado Trial Lawyers' Association publication Trial Talk, Volume 62, Issue 3, April/May 2013 publication at p. 41.“National Security Policy and Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty” 32 Houston Journal of International Law 1 (2009) (contributing author).Vidinliev v. Carey, 581 F.Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D. Ga. 2008) – created federal case law in the area of worker's FLSA rights. Bar LeadershipNATIONALAmerican Association of Justice – Board of Governor, 2018-2020; 2022-2025.American Association of Justice – Executive Committee Member 2019-2020.American Association of Justice – Budget Committee Member 2020-2023American Association of Justice – Elected National President of NLD Division 2016.American Association of Justice – Elected National Vice President of NLD Division 2016.American Association of Justice – Elected National Treasurer of NLD Division 2015.American Association of Justice – Elected National Secretary of NLD Division 2014.American Association of Justice – Appointed Board of Governor on New Lawyers Division, June 2013.American Association of Justice – Appointed Chair of the Publications Committee for the NLD quarterly national publication, the Sidebar, July 2013. STATEColorado Trial Lawyers Association – Elected to serve as Board Member 2016-presentColorado Trial Lawyers Association – Appointed to serve on Executive Committee and Legislative Committee 2016-17, 2021-2022Colorado Trial Lawyers Association – Appointed to serve on Board as Board Member 2015-16.Colorado Trial Lawyers Association – Appointed Membership Chair November 2012 -2015.Colorado Trial Lawyers Association – Appointed New Lawyer Chair November 2013. Community InvolvementActor (Len), A One Night Stand at the Vintage Theater, Don't Throw the Cheese by Mark Ogle.Actor (Reverend Parris), The Crucible at Red Rocks Community Theater.Presenter, End Distracted Driving Campaign; presents programs to high school students to warn them of the dangers of distracted driving.Board of Director, Denver Athletic Club. 

In this episode, Colin Rule (CEO of Mediate.com) speaks with Bridget McCormick, the CEO of the American Arbitration Association/International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR), about the path that led her from being a public defender in NYC, to a law professor in Michigan, to the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and now CEO of AAA/ICDR. They discuss her work in mediation and dispute resolution, how Bridget has updated AAA/ICDR's strategy to embrace mediation and expand access to justice, and the role of technology in the future of the ADR field. Learn More: https://adr.org/ https://www.lawnext.com/2024/05/american-arbitration-association-acquires-odr-com-and-mediate-com-to-expand-online-dispute-resolution.html https://mediate.com/the-mediate-com-aaa-partnership/ About Bridget McCormick: Bridget Mary McCormack is President and CEO of the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution. She is also a Strategic Advisor to the Future of the Profession Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Until the end of 2022, McCormack was Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, a position her peers selected her for in January 2019 after she served for six years as a Justice. While on the Court, she championed innovation and the use of technology to improve access to justice. A graduate of New York University Law School, McCormack started her legal career in New York City. In 1996, she joined the Yale Law School faculty. She then joined the University of Michigan Law School faculty in 1998, where she taught criminal law, legal ethics, and numerous clinics. She was Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs from 2002 until 2012. McCormack was elected to The American Law Institute in 2013. The Attorney General of the United States appointed her to the National Commission on Forensic Science in 2014. In 2019, the Governor of Michigan named her Co-Chair of the Michigan Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration. In 2020, she joined the American Bar Association's Council on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar and currently serves as Vice Chair. In 2021, the Governor of Michigan asked her to co-chair the Michigan Task Force on Forensic Science and to chair the Michigan Jail Reform Advisory Council. She also chaired the Michigan Judicial Council, the strategic planning body for the judicial branch. In 2021, McCormack was also appointed to serve nationally on The Council of State Governments Healthy States National Task Force and the ABA Center for Innovation's Governing Council. She was also named Chair of the ABA Board of Elections. McCormack is an Editor of the ABA's preeminent publication, Litigation Journal. She speaks and writes frequently about access to justice, innovation in the legal profession, and legal education.

Summary of Chapter One: Introduction to Criminal Law. Chapter One provides a foundational overview of criminal law, explaining its purpose, sources, and key concepts. Here's a summary of the essential points covered in this chapter: Overview of Criminal Law. Criminal law is a critical component of the legal system that defines behaviors prohibited by law and prescribes punishments for those who engage in these behaviors. It serves to maintain public order, protect individuals, and deliver justice. Criminal law differs from civil law, which deals with disputes between individuals or organizations, focusing instead on offenses against society as a whole. Sources of Criminal Law. Criminal law in the United States is derived from multiple sources: Statutory Law: The primary source of criminal law, consisting of statutes enacted by federal, state, and local legislatures. These laws precisely define what constitutes criminal behavior and specify the penalties for these acts. Federal statutes address crimes that affect national interests, while state and local statutes cover a broad range of offenses within their respective jurisdictions. Common Law: Historically significant and still influential, common law is developed through judicial decisions and precedents rather than written statutes. It provides interpretive principles and fills in gaps where statutes may be silent or ambiguous. Common law is based on centuries of legal traditions and judicial rulings. Constitutional Law: Fundamental rights and protections in criminal law are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. Key amendments, such as the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, provide protections against unreasonable searches, ensure due process, and guarantee the right to a fair trial, among others. Administrative Law: Encompasses rules and regulations created by governmental agencies to enforce statutory mandates. Violations of these regulations can lead to criminal charges, particularly in areas like public health, safety, and environmental standards. Model Penal Code (MPC): Although not binding, the MPC serves as a guideline for drafting and revising criminal statutes. Developed by the American Law Institute, it aims to standardize and modernize criminal law across states, providing clear definitions and rational principles for criminal liability. Key Concepts and Definitions. Crime: Defined as an act or omission that violates a law prohibiting or commanding it, with a prescribed punishment. Crimes are classified based on their severity into felonies (serious offenses like murder), misdemeanors (less severe offenses like petty theft), and infractions (minor violations like parking offenses). Punishment: The legal consequence imposed on those found guilty of committing a crime. Punishments vary from fines and community service to imprisonment and the death penalty, each serving different purposes like deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Prosecution and Defense: The prosecution represents the government, aiming to prove the defendant's guilt, while the defense seeks to protect the defendant's rights and challenge the prosecution's case. Both parties play critical roles in the adversarial system, ensuring a fair trial and just outcomes. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The highest standard of proof required in criminal trials. To convict a defendant, the evidence must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge or jury about the defendant's guilt. Mens Rea and Actus Reus: These are the two essential elements of a crime. "Mens rea" refers to the guilty mind or intent, while "actus reus" refers to the guilty act or conduct. Both must usually be present simultaneously for a crime to occur. Defenses: Legal arguments that justify, excuse, or otherwise exonerate the defendant from criminal liability. Defenses can include justifications like self-defense or excuses like insanity, which negate criminal --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Chapter 1: Overview of Contract Law 1.1 Introduction to Contract Law Contracts Law is the backbone of legal agreements that bind parties in both personal and business transactions. At its core, a contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises between parties. The enforcement of these promises underpins economic stability and personal reliability. Understanding Contract Law is essential because it dictates how agreements are made, interpreted, enforced, and remedied when broken. Definition of a Contract A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that creates mutual obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are mutual assent (offer and acceptance), consideration, capacity, and legality. Example: When you buy a car, you enter into a contract with the seller. You agree to pay a specified amount of money, and the seller agrees to deliver the car. Both parties have exchanged promises that are legally binding. Historical Context and Development The roots of modern Contracts Law can be traced back to ancient civilizations where agreements were often informal and based on trust. Over time, as commerce expanded, there was a need for more formalized and enforceable agreements. English common law played a significant role in shaping contemporary Contract Law, with many foundational principles derived from historical English cases. The evolution continued with the development of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in the United States and international conventions like the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). 1.2 Sources of Contract Law Contracts Law is derived from various sources, each contributing to the framework and enforcement of contracts. Common Law Common law, developed through judicial decisions, forms the foundation of Contracts Law in many jurisdictions. Judges interpret and apply previous court decisions to resolve new disputes, creating a body of law that evolves over time. Key Principles from Common Law: Stare Decisis: This principle ensures that courts follow precedents set by higher courts in the same jurisdiction. Flexibility and Adaptability: Common law can evolve with societal changes and new types of transactions. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) The UCC is a comprehensive set of laws governing commercial transactions in the United States. It aims to standardize and simplify transactions across state lines. Article 2 of the UCC specifically addresses contracts for the sale of goods, providing rules that often differ from common law principles. Key Aspects of UCC Article 2: Good Faith Requirement: Contracts under the UCC must be performed with honesty and observance of reasonable commercial standards. Merchant-Specific Rules: The UCC includes special provisions applicable to merchants, reflecting their expertise and role in commerce. Restatements of the Law The Restatements of Contracts, published by the American Law Institute, provide a synthesis of common law principles. They serve as influential guides for courts and legal practitioners but do not have the binding authority of statutes or judicial decisions. Key Contributions of Restatements: Clarification of Principles: The Restatements aim to clarify and explain complex legal doctrines in Contracts Law. Guidance for Courts: While not binding, Restatements are frequently cited by courts for persuasive authority. International Principles (CISG) The CISG governs international sales contracts and aims to provide a uniform legal framework for cross-border transactions. It is widely adopted and helps reduce legal barriers in international commerce. Key Features of the CISG: Uniformity in International Trade: The CISG provides standardized rules that reduce the uncertainty and complexity of international transactions. Opt-Out Provision: Parties can choose to exclude the application of the CISG and select their preferred --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Legal scholar Nita Farahany shares her insights into protecting our privacy through the right to cognitive liberty, how neuro-technology can enhance our understanding of mental health, and why the public should demand self-access to their brain data. Nita Farahany is Professor of Law & Philosophy at Duke Law School, Director of Science & Society, and Faculty Chair of the MA in Bioethics & Society Policy. Since 2010, she has served on Obama's Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Her scholarship focuses on the ethical, legal, and social implications of biosciences and emerging technologies, particularly those related to neuroscience and behavioral genetics. She is an elected member of the American Law Institute, Chair of the Criminal Justice Section of the American Association of Law Schools, is one of the co-founding editors-in-chief of Journal of Law and the Biosciences, and serves on the Board of the International Neuroethics Society. She received an AB from Dartmouth College, an MA, PhD, and JD from Duke University, and an ALM from Harvard University. Bonus episode recorded in-person at The Royal Society Neural Interfaces Summit in September 2023. ABOUT THE HOST Luke Robert Mason is a British-born futures theorist who is passionate about engaging the public with emerging scientific theories and technological developments. He hosts documentaries for Futurism, and has contributed to BBC Radio, BBC One, The Guardian, Discovery Channel, VICE Motherboard and Wired Magazine. CREDITS Producer & Host: Luke Robert Mason Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @FUTURESPodcast Follow Luke Robert Mason on Twitter at @LukeRobertMason Subscribe & Support the Podcast at http://futurespodcast.net

In this podcast episode, Gary, host of "The Free Lawyer," welcomes Jeff Kichaven, a seasoned business mediator, to discuss the transition from litigation to mediation and the challenges lawyers face in the adversarial legal system. Jeff shares his journey and the factors that influenced his shift to mediation, including the desire for a more balanced life and the emotional toll of litigation. They explore the changing dynamics of the legal profession, the misconceptions about mediation, and the importance of emotional intelligence in dispute resolution. Jeff also advises lawyers on preparing for mediation, emphasizing the need for understanding biases and the mediator's role. The conversation touches on the broader implications of mediation for the legal system and the importance of personal well-being and relationships for professional success. Jeff Kichaven is one of America's premier mediators.  He has been “Ranked in Chambers” on the US list of top mediators for the past five years, and “Who's Who Legal” lists him as a ”Global Elite Thought Leader” in mediation, one of only six in the US and 28 in the world.  He is a Phi Beta Kappa Graduate of the University of California, Berkeley (Economics, 1977) and an Honors Graduate of Harvard Law School (J.D. Cum Laude, 1980).  He has been a full-time mediator in private practice since 1996.  He is an Elected Member of the American Law Institute, and has been named California Lawyer Attorney of the Year in ADR.  “Best Lawyers” has listed him as one of the Best Mediation Lawyers in Los Angeles for over 15 straight years, and honored him as the single Best Mediation Lawyer in Los Angeles in 2015.  In 2010, the Asian Pacific American Dispute Resolution Center honored him with its Special Award for Excellence in Mediation.  His views on mediation have been cited in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Would you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-free  Would you like to schedule a complimentary discovery call? You can do so here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-call

THE SUPREME COURT WILL SOON DECIDE: If a social media censures you for your viewpoint - does that violate the First Amendment? If laws tell Social Media companies they must publish your viewpoint...is the company's First Amendment rights violated?We all say we want free speech. But if you own a private company can the government tell you what it can and cannot post?  Are social media companies the public square...common carriers...or...private companies that can choose their own content?That is the question before the Supreme Court. In this episode, Bob talks with Supreme Court scholar Eugene Volokh:Facts of the caseThe State of Texas enacted HB 20 to regulate large social media platforms, such as Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and YouTube. The law purports to prohibit large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Texas, challenging two provisions of the law as unconstitutional: (1) Section 7, which prohibits viewpoint-based censorship of users' posts, except for content that incites criminal activity or is unlawful. (2) Section 2, which requires platforms to disclose how they moderate and promote content, publish an "acceptable use policy," and maintain a complaint-and-appeal system for their users.The district court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that Section 7 and Section 2 are facially unconstitutional. The court argued that social media platforms have some level of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, and HB 20 interferes with that discretion. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, rejecting the idea that large corporations have a “freewheeling” First Amendment right to censor what people say. It reasoned that HB 20 does not regulate the platforms' speech but protects other people's speech and regulates the platforms' conduct.Question:Do Texas HB 20's provisions prohibiting social media platforms from censoring users' content and imposing stringent disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment?Our guest:Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (6th ed. 2016), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2013), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. His law review articles have been cited by opinions in eight Supreme Court cases and several hundred court opinions in total, as well as several thousand scholarly articles.

The Insurrection Act is a provision that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. It's been invoked dozens of times by presidents to respond to crises in the over 230 years that it's been around, but it hasn't been reformed in centuries. In recent years, the Insurrection Act has come back into public focus because of its implication in a number of domestic crises, prompting a renewed conversation about whether it's finally time to curb the sweeping powers afforded to the executive in this unique federal law.On April 8, the American Law Institute released a set of principles for Insurrection Act reform, prepared by a group of 10 individuals with backgrounds in constitutional law, national security law, and military law. The co-chairs of this group were Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare Co-Founder and Harvard Law School Professor, and Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law. They joined Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han to talk about the history of the Insurrection Act, to parse out the recommendations the American Law Institute is making for reform, and to make the case for reforming the act in 2024. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Professor Orly Lobel discusses her book "The Equality Machine" and how to use AI to harness a brighter, more inclusive future. Orly is a renowned tech policy scholar and the Director of the Center for Employment and Labor Policy at the University of San Diego. She is a member of the American Law Institute, a former Israeli military data analyst, and Supreme Court clerk. Why should we be optimistic about AI's future? Listen here to find out. Host, Kevin Craine Do you want to be a guest? DigitalTransformationPodcast.net/guest

This week, President Ryan sits down with Dean Risa Goluboff, the twelfth and first female Dean of the University of Virginia School of Law. Dean Goluboff is a renowned legal historian whose scholarship focuses on the historical development of American constitutional and civil rights law; she's been teaching at UVA for more than twenty years, with additional faculty appointments at the Carter G. Woodson Institute for African American and African Studies, the Department of History and the Miller Center for Public Affairs. She's a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the American Law Institute, and chair of the advisory board for UVA's Karsh Institute of Democracy. In this episode, they discuss Dean Goluboff's journey to UVA and the remarkable changes to the Law School under her tenure. They also discuss her favorite parts of being Dean and what lies ahead after she steps down at the end of the semester.

Anupam Chander, Scott Ginsburg Professor of Law and Technology at Georgetown, and Visiting Scholar at Harvard's Institute for Rebooting Social Media, discusses the future of humanity during a wave of paid technology innovation. He also shares how AI is impacting digital sovereignty. Key Takeaways:  Why Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act has been so important for people online How US Internet Laws impact its dominance as a world innovation leader Ways that regulators are having to balance new technologies The impact that judges, regulators, and the courts have had on the evolution of new technologies Guest Bio: Anupam Chander is Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law and Technology at Georgetown. A Harvard College and Yale Law graduate, he is the author of The Electronic Silk Road, published by Yale University Press. He practiced law in NY and Hong Kong with Cleary, Gottlieb, and has been a visiting law professor at Yale, Chicago, Stanford, Cornell, and Tsinghua. A recipient of Google Research Awards and an Andrew Mellon grant, he has consulted for the World Bank, World Economic Forum, and UNCTAD. A non-resident fellow at Yale's Information Society Project, he is a member of the American Law Institute. In 2023-24, he's a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Rebooting Social Media at Harvard University, and Cheng Yu Tung Visiting Professor at the University of Hong Kong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this Show: The Brave Technologist is here to shed light on the opportunities and challenges of emerging tech. To make it digestible, less scary, and more approachable for all! Join us as we embark on a mission to demystify artificial intelligence, challenge the status quo, and empower everyday people to embrace the digital revolution. Whether you're a tech enthusiast, a curious mind, or an industry professional, this podcast invites you to join the conversation and explore the future of AI together. The Brave Technologist Podcast is hosted by Luke Mulks, VP Business Operations at Brave Software—makers of the privacy-respecting Brave browser and Search engine, and now powering AI everywhere with the Brave Search API. Music by: Ari Dvorin Produced by: Sam Laliberte  

Welcome back, devoted listeners, and say hello to season eight of Digging a Hole, where we've got an extraordinarily stacked lineup just waiting in the wings. To make up for the cold, cold months where you had to get your legal theory fix from reading articles (boring) or attending faculty workshops (ugh), we're kicking off the season with a mammoth episode about a mammoth book. Today's guest is the former dean and current Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, and Co-Reporter for the American Law Institute, Robert Post, here to talk about Volume 10 of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States (aka the official biography of SCOTUS), The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921 to 1930. From the outset, Post sets the stage for his argument that the Taft Court and the 1920s are an important but underappreciated time in American legal history. We discuss how the Taft Court grows out of and evolves according to two social questions wrenching the nation – the First World War and Prohibition. Next, we talk about the different theories of sovereignty and democracy as represented by the different wings of the court, with Taft playing counterpoint to lionized jurists Brandeis and Holmes. Sam, angling for his dream job of author of Volume 14 of the Devise, peppers Post with questions about formalism, realism, and consequentialism. We're not kidding when we say that's only half the episode – but, listeners, the second half is a can't-miss if you care about Taft the master administrator, judicial politics, and the power of the Supreme Court. We hope you enjoy. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings A Muted Fury: Populists, Progressives, and Labor Unions Confront the Courts, 1890-1937 by William G. Ross

In this episode, Will Wright talks with Professor Henry L. Chambers Jr. about the significant Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, centering on whether former President Trump should be allowed on the ballot in Colorado. The discussion illuminates the legal pathways for cases to reach the Supreme Court, the intricacies of the 14th Amendment, and the specific constitutional arguments impacting the eligibility of candidates. They dissect the legal and constitutional frameworks guiding the Court's decision-making process, focusing on how this particular case could set precedents for future electoral and constitutional interpretations.The episode provides a deep dive into the broader implications of the Court's potential ruling, examining how it might influence the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law in the United States. Chambers offers his expert insights into the dynamics of the Supreme Court's deliberations, the importance of precedent, and the complex relationship between state and federal electoral laws. Through their conversation, Wright and Chambers engage listeners in a nuanced discussion about the balance of powers, the role of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution, and the critical importance of this case in shaping the landscape of American electoral politics.Guest Bio:Professor Henry L. Chambers, Jr., teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, criminal law, law and religion, and employment discrimination. He is active in the Virginia State Bar, including serving as chair of its Section on the Education of Lawyers from 2007-2009, and has been a member of the American Law Institute since 2002. Professor Chambers served as Special Assistant Attorney General for redistricting matters for the Commonwealth of Virginia from 2011-2013. He also frequently lectures on constitutional law through the We The People program, which provides civic education instruction to school teachers and the public; at James Madison's Montpelier; and at the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville.We have an upcoming documentary about Christian Nationalism We're thrilled to announce an upcoming special audio narrative documentary of Faithful Politics that's been in the works for quite some time – titled "Heavenly Homeland." This groundbreaking project delves into the intricate world of Christian nationalism, exploring its historical roots, contemporary impact, and the nuanced intersection with American politics and faith communities. Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

From representing Yoko Ono to winning class action lawsuits on behalf of actors and musicians, Neville Johnson and his partner Douglas Johnson (no relationship) have built one of the most interesting and successful entertainment law practices in the nation, specializing in representing “talent” as opposed to the business side of the industry.  Join Rahul and Ben for a fascinating discussion with Neville and Doug, as they describe how they got their start in this practice, recount some of their most interesting cases, and talk about trends in entertainment law resulting from new technologies. About Neville Johnson - Senior PartnerWebsite: Johnson and Johnson, LLP Law Firm | Johnson and Johnson, LLP (jjllplaw.com) Professional Experience:Neville L. Johnson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Berkeley (1971).  He received his law degree from Southwestern Law School (1975), graduating near the top of his class.  He has tried over 28 civil jury trials and over 70 civil trials and arbitrations without a jury. He is a member of the invitation-only American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), and is on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles (CAALA since 2005), the Board of Directors of the national organization Public Justice, and on the Board of Governors of the Beverly Hills Bar Association 2013-2015 and 2020-2022 (BHBA). Johnson is a long-time member of the invitation-only Los Angeles Copyright Society, and on the Board of The California Society of Entertainment Lawyers. He was nominated for Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2005 by CAALA.  He was Co-Chair of the Entertainment Law Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association from 2009 to 2011. He has been on the Planning Committee of the USC Entertainment Law Institute since 2011. He has appeared in courts in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In 2020, Mr. Johnson and his team secured a verdict in a Right of Publicity case of over 9 Million Dollars in damages, and over 7 Million Dollars in attorneys fees. Mr. Johnson has litigated and settled countless cases against a wide array of defendants concerning royalty accounting, profit participation, publicity rights, idea theft, copyright infringement, and many other entertainment law matters. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Southwestern Law School since 2012, where he teaches Entertainment and Media Litigation. However, his greatest pride has been in defending the privacy rights of all citizens against the worst malefactors in the media. His work in this field was perhaps best summarized by Professor David A. Elder, a leading expert on the law of privacy, who published the following special dedication in his treatise, Privacy Torts: To Neville L. Johnson… who has led the charge, often successfully (and always creatively and with great passion) in exposing some of the worst outrages of media newsgathering. Neville ranks with Brandeis and Warren as the great defenders of privacy. All America is in his debt. Mr. Johnson has practiced entertainment law and IP law since 1975 [except for 10 months in 1977-78 when he was a Public Defender (juvenile) in Los Angeles County and handled over 100 matters, including two murder trials and one attempted murder trial]. Mr. Johnson has represented many well-known celebrities and entertainment concerns. The firm currently represents Sylvester Stallone in net profit litigation, and many other writers, directors, actors, producers, musicians, models, and JoJo Siwa, the biggest teen star in the world. He and his firm have been lead counsel in many class actions, including pioneering class actions in the entertainment industry against the entertainment unions, major record companies and motion picture companies. The firm has also handled a number of consumer class actions. The firm handles 15 to 20 right of publicity cases a year. Mr. Johnson is a frequent lecturer and written extensively on entertainment, copyright and media and other legal topics, including in London, England  (Entertainment attorneys based in the UK, London Branch of Entertainment Section of BHBA), Cannes, France (MIDEM, the international music convention), New York (ABA Forum on Communications Section, and Entertainment Law Section and New York Bar Assn.: Entertainment Law Section), Nashville (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Las Vegas (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Miami, Arizona State University, Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, Loyola Law School, Southwestern Law School, USC Entertainment Law Institute annual forum (3 times) as well as the undergraduate school, California Western School of Law, California State University, Northridge, and many times to the Entertainment Section of the BHBA as a panelist or moderator), the Intellectual Property Section of Los Angeles County Bar Assn., and Berklee College of Music (Boston). Johnson & Johnson LLP, based in Beverly Hills, California, is a litigation firm that specializes in complex litigation with a particular emphasis on entertainment, intellectual property, right of publicity, privacy, defamation, consumer issues, and class actions. Mr. Johnson and the firm also negotiate business and entertainment agreements. Representative Matters:Obtained a 9.6 Million Dollar jury verdict after a seven week jury trial for claim of violation of the right of publicity, Hansen v. The Coca Cola Company, the largest verdict for a right of publicity case in the history of the United States. The trial court also awarded 7.4 million dollars in attorneys' fees.Obtained a unanimous landmark privacy ruling from the California Supreme Court in Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, a decision that is included in multiple casebooks and taught in law schools across the country.Obtained a published California Court of Appeal opinion representing fitness celebrity Richard Simmons in right of privacy claims against a magazine and private eye for placing a GPS tracker on a car. Simmons v. Bauer Media (2020)Represented numerous victims (both individually and in a class action) of notorious wiretapper Anthony Pellicano and other liable parties, including obtaining a favorable partial affirmance of a significant sanctions award by the California Court of Appeal in Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, which concerned a law firm's use of Pellicano's services.Pioneered the use of class actions against studios and record labels for improperly accounting to artists regarding royalties and profit participation, obtaining multiple eight-figure settlements therefrom. Represented many individuals in profit participation claims, including Sylvester Stallone, Jack Klugman, Richard Dreyfuss and Mike Connors.Represented the heir of songwriter Gram Parsons in Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, defeating a statute of limitations defense and establishing a fiduciary duty claim against a music publisher.Represented numerous legendary musicians and/or their estates on a variety of contractual, accounting, and intellectual property matters, including John Lennon, Buddy Holly, Michelle Phillips, Rick Nelson, P.F. Sloan, members of Earth, Wind and Fire, Mitch Ryder, Lloyd Price and many others.Obtained a $15 million award in a jury trial business fraud case. Honors:He has been repeatedly selected by Super Lawyers as one of the top entertainment attorneys in Southern California (top 5% of attorneys as voted by peers). In 2020, 2021 and 2022 Super Lawyer and his peers named him one of the top 100 attorneys in Southern California, the only entertainment attorney on the list, he was named one of the top 100 Power Lawyers in Entertainment Law by The Hollywood Reporter every year since, 2008, and in 2020 moved to a new permanent category and designated a “Legal Legend.” He has also been designated numerous times one of the top lawyers in entertainment by Variety and Los Angeles legal newspapaer The Daily Journal. He was nominated as Trial Lawyer of the Year by the California Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. He is a fellow at the American Law Institute (only 2% of all attorneys are members).  In 2020 he was honored as Alumnus of the Year by the Biederman Entertainment Law Institute at Southwestern Law School.   A law review article about his career is Richard and Calvert, “Suing the Media, Supporting the First Amendment: the Paradox of Neville Johnson and the Battle for Privacy,” 67 Albany Law Review 1097 (2004). On June 23, 2015, the Los Angeles Times did a major profile (front page, Business Section) on his career, “Contract Sport, ‘Go-to' L.A. Lawyer Says Hollywood Studios Are Shortchanging His Clients,” noting that Johnson & Johnson is one of the few firms successfully taking on the entertainment establishment on a regular basis. The cover story of the July 2016, issue of Attorney at Law magazine is about Neville Johnson.  The Los Angeles Business Journal profiled him on its first page, “Lawyer Up,” (September 9, 2019). Speaking Engagements:He is a frequent speaker, including in London, England [Entertainment attorneys based in the UK, London Branch of Entertainment Section of Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA)], Cannes, France (MIDEM, the international music convention), the Intellectual Property Section of Los Angeles County Bar Assn., and Berklee College of Music (Boston); and the Los Angeles Copyright Society. New York (ABA Forum on Communications Section, and Entertainment Law Section and New York Bar Assn.: Entertainment Law Section), Nashville (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Las Vegas (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Miami, Arizona State University, Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, Loyola Law School, Southwestern Law School, USC Entertainment Law Institute annual forum (3 times) as well as the undergraduate school, California Western School of Law, California State University, Northridge, and many times to the Entertainment Section of the BHBA as a panelist or moderator),  SInce 2011 he has moderated the panel on ethical issues for the annual Year in Review for the Entertainment Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. Publications: Johnson & Johnson, “Interesting New Developments About Which All Practitioners Should be Aware,” 31 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 56 (2020); Johnson, Johnson, Smolla & Tweed, “Defamation and Invasion of Privacy in the Internet Age,” 25 Southwestern Journal of International Law 9 (2019) Johnson & Johnson, “Trouble in Tinseltown, Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 23, 2019); “My Big Mouth,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (March 29, 2019); Johnson & Johnson, “Entertainment Contracts with Minors in New York and California, 30 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 75 (2019); Johnson & Johnson, “A New Way to Revive a Corporation?,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (October 18, 2016); Johnson & Johnson, “Hollywood Docket: One Sided World,” 27 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 32 (2016); Johnson & Elder, “Maybe America Needs More Peter Thiels,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (August 8, 2016); “We've Lost Control,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (June 16, 2016); “Talent Agency Act Survives Suit, Clarity Remains Elusive,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (May 10, 2013); “The Man Who Seduced Hollywood,” 36 Los Angeles Lawyer 41(September 2013); “Remedies for Web Defamation,” California Lawyer 36 (May 2013); “To Find Employment as a Lawyer, You Must Market Yourself,” 36 Los Angeles Lawyer 12 (June 2013); “Ten Rules for Success in the Practice of Law, 31 Los Angeles Lawyer 12 (June 2008); Chapter, Johnson & Aradi, “Defamatory Tweeting and Other Name and Likeness Violations” in Building Your Artist's Brand as a Business, International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (2012) (includes a discussion of right of publicity); Chapter, Johnson & Fowler, “Litigation: How to Draft Defensively Without Killing the Deal” in Licensing of Music from BC to AD (Before the Change/After Digital), International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (2014); Elder, Johnson & Rishwain, “Establishing Constitutional Malice for Defamation and Privacy/False Light Claims When Hidden Cameras and Deception Are Used by the Newsgatherer,” 22 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 327 (2002); “New Developments in California Privacy and Defamation Law,” 23 California Litigation 21 (2010); Johnson & Johnson, “What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts,” 44 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 277 (2010); Johnson & Walsh, “The Danger of “Anti-Libel Tourism” Litigation in the United States, 32 Los Angeles Lawyer 44 (December 2009); Johnson, “Privacy and the First Amendment”, California Litigation (2006); co-author “Caught in the Act,” Los Angeles Lawyer (1998) (an analysis of trends in the right of privacy); Johnson & Lang, The Personal Manager in the California Entertainment Industry, 52 Southern California Law Review 375 (1979)(a definitive article on the regulation of talent agents, personal managers, and the interplay of entertainment unions and guilds in that nexus). He co-authored chapters on music publishing and personal managers in The Musician's Business & Legal Guide (2017 5th edition), and wrote the authorized and best-selling biography of the greatest coach in the history of sports, The John Wooden Pyramid of Success (Second Edition 2004). Since 2012, Neville and Douglas Johnson have taught a course on entertainment and media litigation as Adjunct Professors at Southwestern School of Law.  From 2011-2014, he was one of the panelists teaching the Los Angeles County Bar Association new admittees course on class actions; and since 2011 he has moderated the panel on ethical issues for the annual Year in Review for the Entertainment Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association.  Professional Associations:American Board of Trial Advocates (invitation only)Association of Business Trial LawyersBeverly Hills Bar Association Co-Chair Entertainment Section, 2009-2011Board of Governors, 2012-2015, 2020-2022Consumer Attorneys Association of Los AngelesBoard of Governors, 2005-PresentConsumer Attorneys of CaliforniaLos Angeles Copyright Society (invitation only)Los Angeles County Bar AssociationLoyola Productions [Filmmaking arm of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)]Co-Chair of the Board, 2009-PresentNational Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (Grammy organization)Voting Member (as the recording artist professionally known as Trevor McShane)Public Justice (National organization advocating for consumers and fundamental rights)Board of Governors, 2011-PresentUSC Entertainment Law InstitutePlanning Board, 2011-Present Education:J.D., Southwestern University School of Law, 1975B.A., University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, 1971 Practice Areas:Media LawEntertainment LawEntertainment Class ActionsPrivacy LawComplex Business Litigation Matters, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudRight of Publicity (wrongful use of name and likeness)Copyright Infringement and Theft of Idea casesIssues involving the entertainment unions Admissions:CaliforniaUnited States Supreme Court  About Douglas Johnson - Managing PartnerWebsite: Johnson and Johnson, LLP Law Firm | Johnson and Johnson, LLP (jjllplaw.com) Professional Experience:Mr. Johnson is well known for handling high-profile and high-impact entertainment matters. His clients include producers, actors, directors, writers, production companies, music artists, composers, music publishers, and independent record labels. He is well-known for his successes in royalty disputes, profit participation disputes, right of publicity cases, and theft of idea cases for film and television.  Mr. Johnson also handles invasion of privacy and libel cases, business disputes, and class actions.  Mr. Johnson has been repeatedly named by Super Lawyer as a top intellectual property litigator for more than a decade, representing the top 2.5% of the profession in Southern California. Mr. Johnson also serves as outside general counsel for WorldStarHipHop.com, a popular music and pop culture website, where he deals with cutting-edge copyright, media, and right of privacy issues.  Mr. Johnson has handled numerous copyright infringement lawsuits in Federal Court for Worldstar.   Since co-founding Johnson & Johnson, Mr. Johnson has been at the forefront of developing California's right of publicity laws. He regularly represents celebrities, models, and professional athletes in litigation against defendants who have wrongfully used their images.  He has litigated cases up to the California Supreme Court, advocating for precedent to protect the rights of all Californians from those who would seek to profit from their names, images, and likenesses without authorization. Mr. Johnson's advocacy in this area of law extends to his participation on speaking panels, publication of scholarly articles, and educating law students on the importance of these rights.  Mr. Johnson recently litigated a right of publicity case that resulted in a 9.6 million jury award and an attorney fee award of 7 million against Coca-Cola and Monster Energy for building their Hubert's Lemonade brand around the name of the founder of Hansen Juices, Hubert Hansen.  Mr. Johnson also received a seven-figure jury award in a right of publicity case for an actor/supermodel.   Representative Matters:Handled profit participation disputes on behalf of Sylvester Stallone (Demolition Man, Expendables, and the Rocky Films), Glen Larson (Magnum PI, Knight Rider, Fall Guy, Battlestar Galactica), Ed Weinberger (Amen), Richard Dreyfuss (Goodbye Girl, Mr. Holland's Opus, and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, and What About Bob?), Raymond Wagner (Turner and Hooch), Jack Klugman (Quincy, Odd Couple), Mike Connors (Mannix), the Estate of Charles Bronson (St. Ives, Telefon), Mort Engelberg (Hot Stuff and Smokey And The Bandit), and the owners of the Friday 13th horror franchise.  Lead counsel in a class action against Sony Music, resulting in $12.7 million settlement and 36% uplift in ongoing foreign streaming royalties in Nelson v. Sony (S.D.N.Y) benefiting thousands of legacy recordings artists; currently co-counsel in similar litigation on behalf of legacy artists signed to Warner and Universal. Lead Counsel defending RatPac inidea theft case over the 2018 Melissa McCarthy movie, Life of the Party. (case dismissed on Motion for Summary Judgment).Lead Counsel representing producer in a dispute over turnaround rights to the film Rush Hour 4.  Lead Counsel for Janet Jackson in a royalty dispute with her label.  Obtained $5.35 million in retrospective relief and an estimated $3.1 million in savings over the next three years in Risto v. AFM & SAG-AFTRA (C.D. Cal.) for non-featured performers who receive royalties from the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund.Obtained a seven-figure settlement as lead counsel in a major talent management dispute for actress Karrueche Tran after successfully freezing all her manager's assets in Tran v. Muhammad (C.D. Cal.)Currently representing the leading production music company in North America on a variety of copyright matters both in and out of litigation-see, e.g., Associated Production Music v. The Vail Corp. (C.D. Cal.)Co-counsel in class actions against major Hollywood studios alleging endemic underpayment on home video and new digital media for pre-1982 movies for writers, producers, actors, and directors.  In those cases, Mr. Johnson handled the settlement with Universal for $25 million, the settlement with Fox for $12.6 million, and the settlements with Sony and Paramount.Mr. Johnson was co-counsel in three class actions against the record industry companies over digital download royalties of underpayments to artists (Temptations/Motels/Ronee Blakely), resulting in eight-figure settlements.  The cases dealt head-on with unresolved points of law as to the classification of digital downloads, and the rights of artists to receive royalties in the face of changing technology. Mr. Johnson has litigated several high-profile libel actions against large media companies, resulting in several mid-seven-figure settlements.  Recently he represented Richard Simmons against In-Touch Magazine. In May 2020, he argued and won an Anti-SLAPP appeal for Mr. Simmons.With his partner, Neville L. Johnson, he settled three class actions against the Directors Guild of America, Writers Guild of America, and Screen Actors Guild of America for tens of millions of dollars of unpaid foreign levies.  Defended blues icon B.B. King in a case seeking declaratory relief regarding the right to produce a film about his life, resulting in dismissal of the lawsuit.Obtained a seven-figure jury verdict in Oregon U.S. District Court on behalf of a music artist and record company in a copyright infringement case.Represented business owner in arbitration in a partnership dispute resulting in a seven-figure award for the client.Wrongful death and civil rights case resulting in reorganization of staffing and training at a county jail. The matter was featured on the cover of the Sacramento News & Review and constituted the largest settlement in the nation at the time for such a case. Thought Leadership:Panelist, CalCPA: Entertainment Industry Conference (June 21, 2022)Panelist, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Year in Review, Ethics (January 13, 2020)Adjunct Professor, Entertainment and Media Litigation, Southwestern School of Law, (2012 to Present)Panelist, “Backend Optics: Profit Participations Through Different Lenses,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2018)Panelist, “I'm a Celebrity, You Can't Do That, (Can You?), California Society of Entertainment Lawyers, (2018)Panelist, “Entertainment Year in Review: Entertainment Litigation With Stars Of The Bar,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2017)Panelist, “The Right of Publicity: The State of The Current Law,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2014)The Ever-Evolving Courtroom Drama of Net Profits, Donald L. Stone's Inn of St. Ives, (2012)Panelist, Right of Publicity: How Much Is Your Client Really Worth?, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2012)Panelist, Current Issues in Right of Likeness, Defamation and Privacy, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2011)Panelist, Injuries Without Remedies, Loyola Law School's Legal Symposium, (2011) Sample Publications:The Troubling Trend of Online Exceptionalism to Copyright's Separate Accrual Rule, New York State Bar Association, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, (Summer 2023)Florida sides with California on delayed discovery in copyright cases, Daily Journal (March 3, 2023)The Second and Ninth Circuits Diverge on Copyright Law's Discovery Rule, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol 33, No. 2 (Fall 2022)The Top 3 Copyright Law Developments of 2022 (So Far), New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, (Spring 2022)Say Goodbye to Back-End Deals, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Fall 2021)3 Music Litigation Developments in 2020-2021, Daily Journal (October 23, 2021)Contract, Fraud, and Libel Damages, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California, Advocate Magazine (October 2021).  3 Music Litigation Developments in 2020-2021, Daily Journal (September 16, 2021)Recent Developments In Entertainment Law: Defamation Jurisdiction, Copyright, and Talent Contest Agreements (Summer 2021)Black Windows: Scarlett Jo vs Disney, Daily Journal, (July 6, 2021)Recent Right of Privacy Developments, Daily Journal, (July 22, 2021)Developments In Libel, Social Media, Privacy and The Right of Publicity, (Spring 2021)Copyright Developments in 2020, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Sring 2021)Pandemic-era Appellate Rulings Take on Arbitration, Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 22, 2021)Recent Interesting Cases, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, (Spring 2020)Hollywood Docket: Trending: Data Privacy, Copyright Trolling, And A Clause To Keep In Mind, New York State Bar Association, (June 6, 2020)Recent Development In Copyright Law, Daily Journal, (August 2, 2020)COVID-19 And The Return To Film Production In California, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (July 13, 2020)Interesting New Developments About Which All Practitioners Should Be Aware Of, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, (Winter 2020)My Big Mouth, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Association for Southern California, Advocate Magzine, (December 2019)Entertainment Contracts With Minors in New York and California, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, (Spring 2019)Defamation and Invasion of Privacy in the Internet Age, Southwestern Journal of International Law, Volume XXV (2019)When Will Legal Communication Result In Liability? Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Mar 29, 2019)Entertainment Contracts With Minors: Clarification Needed, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Nov. 27, 2018)Tales and Lessons Regarding the Right of Publicity, USC Entertainment Law Spotlight, Issue 2, (2018)Hollywood Docket: Tales and Lessons Regarding the Right of Publicity, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, No. 2, (Summer 2018)Hollywood Docket: Essential Clauses for Drafting an Ironclad Release and Consent Agreement, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, (Spring, 2018)Before You Sign That Deal At Cannes…Produced By, Producers Guild of America, (April/May 2017)Hollywood Docket: Making the Perfect Pitch, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 27, No.3, (Fall/Winter 2017)Hollywood Docket: One-Sided World, New York State Bar Association, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol 27, No. 2., (Summer, 2016)A New Way to Revive a Corporation, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Oct 26, 2016)Hollywood Docket: Social Media, the Law, and You, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Fall 2016)What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 44:277 (Fall 2010) Published Cases:Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435Walker v. Geico General Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F.3d 1025Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) 50 Cal App.5th 1037Education:J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, 2000, Dean's ListB.A., University of Southern California, 1996, Dean's List Practice Areas:Entertainment LitigationComplex Business LitigationClass Action LitigationIntellectual Property LitigationDefamation, Media, and First Amendment LawRights of Privacy and Publicity Admissions:California   

In this week's episode, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Sanford Levinson to discuss the 2000 election, the Supreme Court decision that finalized it, and how this decision has had ramifications throughout modern history. Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, "The Court Has Stopped the Count" Sanford Levinson, who holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980. Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas. Levinson is the author of approximately 400 articles, book reviews, or commentaries in professional and popular journals--and a regular contributor to the popular blog Balkinization. He has also written six books: Constitutional Faith (1988, winner of the Scribes Award, 2d edition 2011); Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (1998); Wrestling With Diversity (2003); Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It)(2006); Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (2012); An Argument Open to All: Reading the Federalist in the 21st Century (2015); and, with Cynthia Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and teh Flaws that Affect Us Today (forthcoming, September 2017). Edited or co-edited books include a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (6th ed. 2015, with Paul Brest, Jack Balkin, Akhil Amar, and Reva Siegel); Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (2016); Reading Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (1988, with Steven Mallioux); Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment (1995); Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies (1998, with William Eskridge); Legal Canons (2000, with Jack Balkin); The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion (2005, with Batholomew Sparrow); Torture: A Collection (2004, revised paperback edition, 2006); and The Oxford Handbook on the United States Constitution (with Mark Tushnet and Mark Graber, 2015). He received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association in 2010. He has been a visiting faculty member of the Boston University, Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Yale law schools in the United States and has taught abroad in programs of law in London; Paris; Jerusalem; Auckland, New Zealand; and Melbourne, Australia. He was a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1985-86 and a Member of the Ethics in the Professions Program at Harvard in 1991-92. He is also affiliated with the Shalom Hartman Institute of Jewish Philosophy in Jerusalem. A member of the American Law Institute, Levinson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He is married to Cynthia Y. Levinson, a writer of children's literature, and has two daughters and four grandchildren.

Join us as we delve into the crucial debate surrounding the exclusion of Donald Trump from the Colorado and Maine ballots, a pivotal issue in the political and legal spheres with Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, Henry L. Chambers, JR. Our insightful discussion centers on the implications of the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 3, which disqualifies individuals involved in insurrection from holding office. We dissect the self-executing aspect of the 14th Amendment and analyze the diverse interpretations by states like Colorado and Maine.Crucially, we examine the Supreme Court's role in determining Trump's eligibility, emphasizing the significance of their impending decision. Our conversation also ventures into the possibility of a write-in campaign and its extensive political ramifications.Throughout the episode, we navigate through various dimensions of the upcoming election, focusing on bipartisan perspectives on disqualifying Trump, the urgent need for highly qualified presidential candidates, and the intense nature of presidential elections. We address the concerning lack of national discourse on multiple qualified candidates, the internal divisions plaguing the Republican Party, and the overall scarcity of meaningful dialogues and common ground in today's political landscape.Furthermore, we discuss the anxieties surrounding the upcoming election, the ongoing court cases and state legislation pertinent to Trump's disqualification, the necessity for a national discussion on the January 6th insurrection, and the interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the Reconstruction Amendments. It was a very in-depth conversation with a wonderful mind helping us make sense of it all! Read the publication Professor Chambers mentioned in the show: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol69/iss1/10/Guest Bio:Professor Henry L. Chambers, Jr., teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, criminal law, law and religion, and employment discrimination. He is active in the Virginia State Bar, including serving as chair of its Section on the Education of Lawyers from 2007-2009, and has been a member of the American Law Institute since 2002. Professor Chambers served as Special Assistant Attorney General for redistricting matters for the Commonwealth of Virginia from 2011-2013. He also frequently lectures on constitutional law through the We The People program, which provides civic education instruction to school teachers and the public; at James Madison's Montpelier; and at the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

In this special replay Christmas episode, we're diving into a light-hearted but intriguing legal exploration: prosecuting Santa Claus. Yes, you heard that right! We're putting Chris Cringle, aka Saint Nicholas, on the metaphorical stand. Known as the head of a global operation, Santa's actions raise numerous legal questions, from aviation law violations to potential animal welfare concerns.Corinna, with her background as a prosecutor and constitutional scholar, brings a playful yet insightful angle to the discussion. We'll delve into the hypothetical legal ramifications of Santa's global travels, his entry methods into homes, and even the employment practices at his North Pole workshop. Is Santa's operation a case of breaking and entering on a global scale? What about the FAA regulations for his sleigh and reindeer? And let's not forget the potential labor law violations with those hardworking elves!As we unpack these questions, we also touch on the lighter side of the law. How would Santa defend himself in court? Could he claim any legal immunities or special considerations given his unique role in society? And most importantly, what would a jury trial for Santa Claus look like?This episode is a blend of legal theory, festive fun, and a dash of holiday spirit. So, whether you've been naughty or nice, join us for an hour of entertaining legal debate that's sure to add a new dimension to your holiday musings. Remember, this is all in good fun, and no actual Santas were prosecuted in the making of this episode!Guest Bio:Professor Corinna Barrett Lain is a constitutional law scholar who writes about the influence of extralegal norms on Supreme Court decisionmaking, with a particular focus on the field of capital punishment. Her scholarship, which often uses the lens of legal history, has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal, among other venues. Professor Lain is an elected member of the American Law Institute, and received the University of Richmond's Distinguished Educator Award in 2006. She is a former prosecutor and an Army veteran.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

In this episode, Maureen talks with Richard Thompson Ford, author of “Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History.” They explore how fashion has been used throughout history as a way to reinforce class structures, gender roles, and social norms. Though dress codes are not as overt today, Richard explains how unwritten fashion rules still dictate what we wear.The “Straw Hat Riot” of 1922 erupted over men wearing straw hats past September 15thHigh heels originated as a masculine fashion, first worn by Persian horseback riders to lock into stirrupsThe flapper look in the 1920s was the first successful “rational dress” movement for womenTartans emerged as symbols of Scottish identity partly in reaction to British dress codes banning themThough we think fashion is casual today, there are still unwritten “uniforms” in many industries and social groupsRelated Episodes:Episode 91:Suffragists and Suffragettes: Fashion and the Vote Episode 155: Ancestral Handbag History with Curator Jessica HarpleyLinks:Richard Thompson Ford Sign up for my newsletter.Watch my YouTube Channel.Like the Photo Detective Facebook Page so you get notified of my Facebook Live videos.Need help organizing your photos? Check out the Essential Photo Organizing Video Course.Need help identifying family photos? Check out the Identifying Family Photographs Online Course.Have a photo you need help identifying? Sign up for photo consultation.About My Guest:Richard Thompson Ford is Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. He writes about law, social and cultural issues and race relations and has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, CNN and Slate.   He is the author of the New York Times notable books The Race Card and Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality.  He has appeared on The Colbert Report, The Rachel Maddow Show, and The Dylan Rattigan Show.  He is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the board of the Authors Guild Foundation.  Quite to his surprise, he was one of 25 semi-finalists in Esquire magazine's Best Dressed Real Man contest in 2009.About Maureen Taylor:Maureen Taylor, The Photo DetectiveÒhelps clients with photo-related genealogical problems. Her pioneering work in historic photo research has earned her the title “the nation's foremost historical photo detective” by The Wall Street I'm thrilled to be offering something new. Photo investigations. These collaborative one-on-one sessions. Look at your family photos then you and I meet to discuss your mystery images. And find out how each clue and hint might contribute to your family history. Find out more by going to maureentaylor.com and clicking on family photo investigations. Support the show

Lara and Carey assemble for the finale recap of season 2 of And Just Like That... But first, they discuss the toothless gay conman who claims he smoked crack and hooked up with Obama. Then, the time has come for the phone call of the YEAR! Samantha Jones herself rings in from Jolly Old London to break some bad news to Carrie. Charlotte lays down the law with Harry, and Chablis Hobbes finally gets her ass to Coney Island to make amends with Steve. Nya Wallace gets inducted into the American Law Institute, Seema gets squirrely about Ravi, and Anthony and Giuseppe work through Anthony's hole shame. All of this leads to Carrie's big Last Supper in her apartment, where this group of non-friends assembles to break bread and make things uncomfortable. Plus, Aidan finally gets his revenge...Listen to this episode ad-free AND get access to weekly bonus episodes + video episodes by joining the SUP PATREON.Be cheap as hell and get full-length videos of the pod for free by subscribing to the SUP YOUTUBE.Re-live the best moments of this iconic podcast by following the SUP TIKOK. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Professor Orly Lobel discusses her book "The Equality Machine" and how to use AI to harness a brighter, more inclusive future. Orly is a renowned tech policy scholar and the Director of the Center for Employment and Labor Policy at the University of San Diego. She is a member of the American Law Institute, a former Israeli military data analyst, and Supreme Court clerk. Why should we be optimistic about AI's future? Listen here to find out. Host, Kevin Craine Do you want to be a guest?

Every time our brain does some thinking, there are associated physical processes. In particular, electric currents and charged particles jump between neurons, creating associated electromagnetic fields. These fields can in principle be detected with proper technology, opening the possibility for reading your mind. That technology is currently primitive, but rapidly advancing, and it's not too early to start thinking about legal and ethical consequences when governments and corporations have access to your thoughts. Nita Farahany is a law professor and bioethicist who discusses these issues in her new book, The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Nita Farahany received a J.D. and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Duke University. She is currently the Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law & Philosophy at Duke, as well as Founding Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society. She has served on a number of government commissions, including the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. She is a Fellow of the American Law Institute and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and was awarded the Duke Law School Distinguished Teaching Award.Web siteDuke web pageWikipediaTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.