Podcasts about Constitutional law

Send us a textJoin your hosts on this week of Serious Privacy,  Paul Breitbarth, Ralph O'Brien, and Dr. K Royal as they close out 2025 with favorite moments and episodes, state law review, and predictions. And of course, a little bit about EU data protection. We'll be back January 28, global privacy / data protection day! If you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn and Instagram @seriousprivacy, and on BlueSky under @seriousprivacy.eu, @europaulb.seriousprivacy.eu, @heartofprivacy.bsky.app and @igrobrien.seriousprivacy.eu, and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! From Season 6, our episodes are edited by Fey O'Brien. Our intro and exit music is Channel Intro 24 by Sascha Ende, licensed under CC BY 4.0. with the voiceover by Tim Foley.

What are the legal implications of the unprecedented mass pardoning of the January 6th rioters? What does it say about American rule of law? President Biden's DOJ prosecuted nearly 1,600 of the January 6, 2021, rioters—many for acts of shocking violence against police and government offices. On January 20, newly sworn-in President Trump, in one of his first official acts, issued a sweeping grant of clemency to all of the rioters charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol attack. He pardoned most defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The response from some of these violent rioters since the pardons has been alarming.“The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. We need to find and put them behind bars for what they did,” said Enrique Tarrio, the former national Proud Boys leader, sentenced to a 22-year sentence on seditious conspiracy charges, on Alex Jones' podcast soon after his pardon. Our guests today are Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar and former DOJ prosecutor Brendan Ballou.Sinnar's scholarship, including a recent study of hate groups, focuses on the legal treatment of political violence, the procedural dimensions of civil rights litigation, and the role of institutions in protecting individual rights and democratic values in the national security contextBallou was a lawyer at the Department of Justice for five years. He resigned on January 23 soon after President Trump's pardons. In a New York Times opinion essay, he wrote: “For while some convicted rioters seem genuinely remorseful, and others appear simply ready to put politics behind them, many others are emboldened by the termination of what they see as unjust prosecutions. Freed by the president, they have never been more dangerous.” He graduated from Stanford Law in 2016.Links:Shirin Sinnar >>> Stanford Law pageNew York Times piece by Brendan Ballou >>> I Prosecuted the Capitol Rioters. They Have Never Been More Dangerous.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The January 6th Prosecutions and the Pardon Power(00:06:26) Rewriting History and the Threat of Political Violence (00:11:56) The Future of Political Violence in the U.S. (17:24) Addressing Militia Violence and Legal Gaps(21:37) State-Level Prosecutions and Risks of Expanding Criminal Laws(25:27) Pardons, Political Violence, and Historical Parallels   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Social media restrictions could infringe on First Amendment rights for children Note: This conversation originally aired on the "Sound of Ideas" on Nov. 3, 2025. How to manage young people's social media use is a big question, with many factors at play, including the well-being of minors, the logistics of monitoring online activity and their constitutional rights. In Ohio, lawmakers are trying to take this matter into their own hands. One law limiting social media access is currently on hold, after a federal court blocked it as an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights. That decision is now being appealed by Attorney General Dave Yost. This year, two new bills have been introduced that would limit children's access to social media in different ways and bring app stores into the equation: Senate Bill 167 (backed by Meta) and Senate Bill 175 (backed by Google). The topic was the first in our newly created series “Law of the Land” which explores how the law impacts your life. Guests: Jonathan Entin, Professor of Constitutional Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Morgan Reed, President, The App Association Tony Coder, Executive Director, Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation Kareem Moncree-Moffett, Ph.D., Founder, Youth Lead Alliance MLB, Ohio's Casino Control Commission and sports betting companies agree to regulation changes Note: This conversation originally aired on the "Sound of Ideas" on Nov. 17, 2025. Federal indictments against two Cleveland Guardians pitchers, Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz, have rocked Major League Baseball and the sports betting world. In response to these charges of rigging bets on specific pitches, MLB worked together with the Ohio Casino Control Commission and sports betting companies to come up with mutually-agreed upon new regulations governing what's known as microprop bets, limiting them considerably compared to what was allowed before. In this installment of our "Law of the Land" series on "Sound of Ideas," we'll explain the sports betting regulation changes, and look at the other legal problems that have come up surrounding betting in Ohio in both the NFL, involving famed Cleveland Browns quarterback Bernie Kosar, and NBA, related to allegations of faking an injury to help gamblers win against Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier, who is a former Shaker Heights High School basketball star, along with how and why the rules differ for college sports. Guests: Joe Maloney, Senior Vice President of Strategic Communications for the American Gaming Association Eric Chaffee, John C. Hutchins Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Joe Scalzo, Sports Business Journalist for Crain's Cleveland Business

In Episode 446 of The Andrew Parker Show, Andrew Parker asks a fundamental question: Does the rule of law still matter?This episode examines a public letter issued by faculty affiliated with the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs criticizing immigration enforcement—and what that letter reveals about the mindset of modern public policy elites. Drawing on his personal experience as a graduate of both the Humphrey School and the Mondale School of Law, Parker explores what the letter says, what it omits, and why selective outrage erodes public trust, safety, and democratic accountability.The discussion addresses immigration, enforcement of existing law, large-scale fraud, public safety, and the dangers of academic echo chambers that prioritize ideology over consequences. Parker also connects these issues to broader constitutional concerns, including the boundaries of the First Amendment, institutional responsibility, and the real-world cost of abandoning law and order.A candid and timely episode on immigration, public policy, and why a society that stops enforcing its laws places itself at risk.Support the showThe Andrew Parker Show - Politics, Israel & The Law. Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X. Subscribe to our email list at www.theandrewparkershow.com Copyright © 2025 The Andrew Parker Show - All Rights Reserved.

Show Notes: Noah Feldman,  Harvard Law professor, author, and ethical advisor talks about his career in constitutional law and his experiences in Iraq and Tunisia, sharing stories from his time guiding, and in some cases, establishing, the law of countries in turmoil or collapse. He also talks about the themes explored in his books  and current pursuits. Real World Projects in Constitutional Law Noah describes his academic journey, starting from his early love for school and his decision to pursue academia full-time, with brief interruptions for real-world projects. He shares his experiences as a law clerk for the late Justice David Souter and his role as the senior constitutional advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Noah discusses his involvement in drafting the Iraqi constitution, starting from scratch, and the unique opportunity it provided to apply his academic knowledge in a real-world scenario. He recounts his work in Tunisia after the Arab Spring, advising the Constituent Assembly on constitutional design.  Oversight on Facebook After writing his book about James Madison, Noah's next step was unexpected involvement with Facebook's Oversight Board, which was inspired by a conversation with Sheryl Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg. He was in California giving a talk at Stanford. He was thinking about writing a book on free speech in the era of social media. He explained to Sheryl how he had the idea that Facebook would benefit from having a kind of private Supreme Court. And the idea was that all of the companies privately made content moderation decisions could actually be made in a more public and transparent way, according to principles and the doing so would add to the legitimacy of their decision-making process. She loved the idea and introduced him to Mark Zuckerberg, and the outcome was the Oversight Board. Noah explains his ongoing work advising tech companies on governance issues and the complexities of balancing free expression and ethics in the tech industry. A Sideline in Journalism and a Focus on Writing Noah mentions his sideline in journalism, starting with a recommendation from Michael Ignatieff to write for the New York Times. He shares his experience of writing for Bloomberg's opinion section for over a decade. Noah talks about his podcast, Deep Background, which he hosted for three years, and his plans to relaunch it in a slightly different format. He discusses his current book project, The Importance of Being Human, which explores the value of human relationships in the age of AI and technology. Noah elaborates on his book project, focusing on the importance of human relationships in various aspects of life, including work, family, and politics. He expresses his open-mindedness about the potential value of romantic relationships with AI, despite initially holding a different view. Following a Theme of Constitutions When asked about his book choices, Noah explains his organizing theme of constitutions, focusing on Middle Eastern and US constitutional history. Noah outlines his planned book series on the history of the US Constitution, emphasizing the narrative throughline of the people who shaped it. He shares his experiences in Iraq, describing the chaotic and disorganized environment he encountered and the challenges of creating a functioning legal system in the midst of civil disorder. He shares the biggest lesson learned, the importance of order and law, arguing that without de facto control on the ground, it is difficult to establish a functioning legal or constitutional system. He also talks about how militias were formed. Noah discusses his work in Tunisia, highlighting the successful transition to democracy and the role of Islamist political parties in the democratic process. He reflects on the importance of norms and conventions in maintaining a functional constitutional system, using the example of Tunisia's failed Constitutional Court. Norms and Conventions in Maintaining a Constitutional System Noah emphasizes the significance of norms and conventions in the functioning of institutions, including legal systems and constitutional orders. He discusses the role of norms in the US constitutional system, using the example of the impeachment of Donald Trump to illustrate how norms can be changed by actions that challenge them. Noah reflects on the importance of understanding and respecting norms and conventions in maintaining the integrity of legal and constitutional systems. He highlights the need for clear and effective checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power and ensure the rule of law. The Importance of Family Noah shares details about his personal life, including his recent marriage to Julia Allison and his two children, Jamin and Mina, who are pursuing careers in the arts. He describes his relationship with his ex-wife, Jeannie Suk Gerson, and her husband, Jake Gerson, and how they maintain a good working relationship despite being colleagues.Noah reflects on the importance of family and personal relationships in his life, noting the support and encouragement he receives from his family.  Harvard Reflections Noah reminisces about his time at Harvard, highlighting the impact of his mentors and the courses he took. He talks about his mentorship with Robert Nozick and the influence of his work on his current thinking, medieval Islamic and Jewish Studies and his professors there Isadore Turski, Bernard Septimus, and Mohsen Madi. he also mentions Richard Primus, Constitutional Law with H.W. Perry. Noah discusses his involvement with the Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School and the importance of medieval Jewish and Islamic Studies in his work. He reflects on the value of response papers in developing his skills as a journalist and opinion writer. Timestamps: 03:58: Involvement in Real-World Projects 07:52 Journalism and Media Engagement  13:07: Research and Personal Insights  23:51: Lessons from Iraq and Tunisia  37:46: Impact of Norms and Conventions  42:04: Personal Life and Family  45:08: Influences and Mentorship  Links: Website: https://www.noahfeldman.com/ Email: noah_feldman@harvard.edu @professornoahfeldman Linktree Featured Non-profit The featured non-profit of this week's episode  is brought to you by Anastasia Fernand who reports: "Hi. I'm Anastasia Fernand, class of 1992. The featured non-profit of this episode of the 1992 report is the Rebecca H. Rhodes African Inclusive Literacy Research prize. The African inclusive literacy Research Fund supports African scholars and practitioners undertaking research to identify the best ways of helping children with disabilities become literate as a critical step in reaching their full potential. Rebecca was my roommate throughout college and a member of our class of 1992 Rebecca spent her career proving that every child can learn. Let's make sure her prize keeps proving it for generations to come. And now here is Will Bachman with this week's episode." To learn more about their work, visit: https://www.adeanet.org

Dr John Fliter, author of U.S. vs. Darby Lumber Co.: The Triumph of Fair Labor Standards (University Press of Kansas, 2025), is our guest today. The interview covers the history of the struggle for fair labor standards in the US, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the state of labor today. … More Fair Labor Standards in the United States: A Conversation With Constitutional Law Expert John Fliter

Birthright citizenship is headed to the Supreme Court — and the stakes couldn't be higher. Michael Smerconish sits down with Washington Post columnist and National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru to unpack one of the most consequential constitutional debates of our time. As the Court prepares to hear a challenge to birthright citizenship, they explore what the Constitution actually says, how the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted, and whether the U.S. is truly an outlier compared to the rest of the world. From immigration enforcement and executive authority to American exceptionalism and global norms, this conversation breaks down the legal arguments, policy tradeoffs, and political realities surrounding a case that could reshape who gets to be an American. A must-listen ahead of what could be a landmark Supreme Court decision. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Joining State of Tel Aviv and Beyond today is Professor Suzie Navot, one of Israel's foremost constitutional law experts currently serving as Vice President of the Israel Democracy Institute.For six years now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been on trial for multiple corruption charges. He does not hide his contempt for the judicial system which he considers to be rotten to the core. A consistent theme of his leadership for the last decade has been to relentlessly attack the judiciary and law enforcement institutions for being an elitist, self-serving clique that is also left leaning and determined to sabotage the policies of his successive government coalitions. Most recently, Netanyahu has enlisted the support of U.S. President Trump to publicly pressure President Isaac Herzog to grant him a pardon; to make the charges and the trial just go away. Two months ago, in signature Trump larger-than-life theatrics, the American president implored his Israeli counterpart to just give Bibi a pardon already. Raucous applause filled the Knesset hall - where Trump was speaking - but the din has since died down. Pardoning Netanyahu is no simple matter - legally, politically or in terms of social mores. But Netanyahu is not relenting. In the last two weeks, Bibi and his lawyer sent written documents to President Herzog setting out what they state is the legal rationale for granting a pardon. Interestingly, they present Netanyahu as the man who is needed to heal the country and manage the security and diplomatic challenges free from distractions - like the trial. But, as Prof. Navot notes - Benjamin Netanyahu is charged personally with corruption-related offenses. He is not the state. And he is not above the law. With clarity and precision, Prof. Navot explains why the Netanyahu pardon request does not meet Israeli legal requirements and this request places President Herzog in a very difficult spot.Show your support for STLV at buymeacoffee.com/stateoftelavivPodcast NotesProfessor Suzie Navot is a Professor of Constitutional Law. She holds an LL. B degree from Tel-Aviv University, an MA in Public Policy from Tel-Aviv University and a LL.D from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her doctoral thesis studied the parliamentary immunity of the Knesset members.Prof. Navot's areas of research include constitutional law, law of institutions, parliamentary law and comparative constitutional law.Prior to her appointment to IDI. she served on the faculty of the Striks Faculty of Law, College of Management. For over ten years, she served as a visiting Professor at the National Security College, and from 2009 until 2015, as a visiting Professor at the University of Paris (Sorbonne).Navot has served as the Chairperson of the Israeli Association of Public Law (2014-2017), currently serves on the executive council of the Israeli Association of Legislation and is a member of the Executive Council of the International Association of Constitutional Law (IACL).She is active in a wide range of public activities. A small selection of these activities includes her service on public commissions dealing with such issues as an Ethics Code for the Israeli Parliament, the Presidential volunteers' award; the preparation of a new law on election propaganda (appointed by the Israeli President and the Chair of the Central Elections Committee), and was appointed by the Prime Minster to the board of directors for the Civil Service education program. Since 2021, Prof. Navot serves as a member of the commission tasked with preparing a draft of the Basic Law: The Legislature, presided by the Minister of Justice.Navot has published widely in several languages. She has prepared written opinions for Knesset committees and for the President of Israel on constitutional questions. She received a special award from the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the prestigious Zeltner prize for a special contribution to Israeli society in the field of law, and the “Ometz” award for a special contribution to the battle against corruption.In recognition of her extraordinary teaching skills, Navot was the recipient of the teaching excellence nomination, for almost 30 consecutive years, and the Inspiring Lecturer award, by the National Students Union.State of Tel Aviv is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.stateoftelaviv.com/subscribe

Another Conservative MP crosses the floor Guest: Dr. Daniel Béland, Director, McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University Aboriginal titles that could set precedent? Guest: Dwight Newman, Law prof; Canada Research Chair in Rights, Communities, and Constitutional Law, University of Saskatchewan Vancouver council rejects move to fast-track social housing Guest: William Azaroff, CEO of non-profit housing provider Brightside, and who is currently seeking OneCity's mayoral nomination Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when the guardrails of the Constitution start to shake? In this America at a Crossroads program, renowned constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky joins veteran journalist Warren Olney to examine “The Constitution in Crisis: What's at Stake for American Democracy.”They break down threats to the rule of law, the future of the Supreme Court, voting rights, presidential power, and how ordinary citizens can respond when core democratic norms are under pressure.Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean of Berkeley Law and one of the nation's leading experts on constitutional law and civil liberties. Warren Olney is the award-winning former host and executive producer of KCRW's nationally syndicated program To the Point.Recorded on Wednesday, December 10, 2025 at 5:00 pm Pacific, this conversation is part of the Community Conversations series founded by Jews United for Democracy & Justice.

Clarence Ford spoke to Sarah Fick, Senior Lecturer, Constitutional Law and Human Rights, University of the Western Cape. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hawk sits down with his bestie - trial attorney and olive oil entrepreneur Shaana for an unfiltered conversation about the Supreme Court's shadow docket abuse, particularly the Texas gerrymandering case that enables racial discrimination in voting. The discussion covers how SCOTUS is dismantling constitutional protections through emergency rulings without oral arguments or proper opinions, leaving lower court judges with no guidance.The conversation shifts to Pam Bondi's tenure as Attorney General, examining her qualified background as Florida AG from 2010-2018 alongside her failures to investigate Jeffrey Epstein during that period. Despite her credentials, Bondi's DOJ has faced multiple grand jury rejections and court losses, including failed prosecutions and the spectacular dismissal of cases against James Comey and Letitia James.Hawk and Shaana analyze Justice Kavanaugh's concerning concurrence that carved out Fourth Amendment exceptions for ICE stops based solely on race and ethnicity. They explore how the current Supreme Court lacks the intellectual rigor of predecessors like Scalia, with justices like Alito producing poorly reasoned opinions while Thomas and Alito cherry-pick historical context to justify predetermined outcomes.The discussion touches on Supreme Court ethics violations, including Clarence Thomas's unreported gifts and Samuel Alito's luxury vacations from donors with business before the court. They examine how there are no ethics codes governing Supreme Court justices while state court judges face stringent rules. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole- Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Podcasts RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding the First Amendment: Speech and ReligionThis conversation delves into the complexities of the First Amendment, focusing on the distinctions between various types of speech, the legal frameworks for analyzing free speech cases, and the evolving interpretations of the Establishment Clause. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding state action, the differences between content-based and content-neutral regulations, and the implications of strict and intermediate scrutiny. It also explores the chilling effects of vague laws, the significance of forum analysis, and the historical context of religious freedom in America. The conversation concludes with key takeaways for law students preparing for exams, highlighting the shift from viewing speech as individual expression to understanding it as a vital process of communication in a democratic society.Navigating the complexities of the First Amendment can feel like a daunting task, especially when preparing for law school exams or the bar. The First Amendment encompasses a wide range of issues from political speech to religious freedom, and its doctrines are constantly evolving. This blog post aims to provide a clear framework to help you understand and analyze First Amendment issues effectively.The Framework for Analyzing Free Speech: The First Amendment's protection of free speech is not just about an individual's right to express themselves. It's about safeguarding a process of communication that is essential for democracy. The key is to distinguish between content-based and content-neutral regulations. Content-based laws, which regulate speech based on its topic or viewpoint, are subject to strict scrutiny and are often deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, content-neutral laws, which regulate the time, place, or manner of speech, are subject to intermediate scrutiny.The Role of Historical Practices in Religion Clauses: The Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion, has undergone significant changes. The Supreme Court has moved away from the Lemon test, which focused on the effects of a law, to a new standard based on historical practices. This shift emphasizes the importance of understanding historical context when analyzing Establishment Clause issues.Key Takeaways for Law Students:Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral: Understand the difference and apply the appropriate level of scrutiny. Historical Practices: Use historical context to analyze Establishment Clause issues. Communication Model: Consider the broader impact of speech on communication and democracy.The First Amendment is a dynamic area of law that requires a nuanced understanding of both historical context and modern applications. By using the frameworks and models discussed, you can approach First Amendment issues with confidence and clarity. Remember, it's not just about protecting individual expression, but about preserving the vital process of communication that underpins our democracy.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and analysis.TakeawaysThe First Amendment encompasses a wide range of speech-related issues.Understanding state action is crucial for analyzing free speech cases.Content-based regulations trigger strict scrutiny, while content-neutral regulations face intermediate scrutiny.The chilling effect can deter individuals from exercising their free speech rights.Forum analysis helps determine the level of protection for speech on government property.The Establishment Clause has evolved, moving away from the Lemon test to a historical understanding.The neutrality principle mandates that religious groups cannot be excluded from public benefits.First Amendment, free speech, state action, content-based regulations, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, chilling effect, forum analysis, establishment clause, neutrality principle

Court of Appeal rules B.C.'s Indigenous rights laws can be legally enforced (0:40) Guest: Dr. Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Rights, Communities, and Constitutional Law at the University of Saskatchewan Netflix acquires Warner Bros.: What does this mean for your streaming bill? (12:52) Guest: Rick Forchuk, TV Week Magazine columnist and CKNW contributor City of Vancouver proposes 20% cut to development fees (23:22) Guest: Michael Geller, President of The Geller Group, Architect, Planner and Real Estate Consultant Whitecaps battle for the MLS Cup in history-making final (37:48) Guest: Asa Rehman, sports reporter for Global News and radio play-by-play commentator for the Whitecaps The Wrap: Should taxpayer dollars be used to keep sports teams in Vancouver (43:41) Plus, should Jas run as B.C. Conservative leader? Guests: Sarah Daniels, real estate agent in South Surrey; author and broadcaster Steven Chang, Producer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guest: Dr. Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Rights, Communities, and Constitutional Law at the University of Saskatchewan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Equal Protection: A Roadmap for Law StudentsThis conversation delves into the complexities of the Equal Protection Clause, exploring its historical context, the three tiers of scrutiny, and the nuances of applying these standards in legal analysis. The discussion emphasizes the importance of categorization, the rigorous demands of strict scrutiny, and the implications of remedial racial classifications. It also addresses the challenges posed by facially neutral laws and the frameworks used to prove discriminatory intent, providing a comprehensive roadmap for law students preparing for exams.Navigating the complexities of constitutional law can be daunting, especially when it comes to the Equal Protection Clause. This blog post aims to demystify the intricate frameworks and standards that govern equal protection analysis, providing law students with a structured approach to mastering this critical area of law.The Three-Tiered Framework: At the heart of equal protection analysis is the three-tiered framework of judicial review. This framework helps determine the level of scrutiny a court will apply to a law that classifies individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender, or age. Understanding these tiers—strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review—is essential for any law student.Strict Scrutiny: The most rigorous standard, strict scrutiny, applies to laws that classify individuals based on race or national origin. Under this standard, the government must prove that the classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This level of scrutiny is often described as "strict in theory, fatal in fact," as laws rarely survive this analysis.Intermediate Scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny is applied to classifications based on gender and legitimacy. The government must demonstrate that the classification serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. This standard is less demanding than strict scrutiny but more rigorous than rational basis review.Rational Basis Review: The default standard, rational basis review, applies to all other classifications. Under this standard, the government only needs to show that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Laws are almost universally upheld under this deferential standard, except in cases where animus is the sole motivation.Mastering the equal protection framework is crucial for law students preparing for exams or the bar. By understanding the nuances of each tier and applying them to hypothetical scenarios, students can confidently tackle any equal protection question. As the legal landscape evolves, particularly with the rise of algorithmic decision-making, staying informed and adaptable is key to success.Subscribe Now: Stay updated with the latest insights and analysis on constitutional law by subscribing.TakeawaysThe Equal Protection Clause demands structural precision.Identifying classification is the first step in analysis.Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard applied to suspect classes.Intermediate scrutiny applies to gender and illegitimacy classifications.Rational basis review is the default standard for most classifications.Remedial racial classifications must show specific past discrimination.Rational basis with bite addresses laws motivated by animus.Facially neutral laws require proof of discriminatory intent to challenge.The Arlington Heights framework helps prove intent through circumstantial evidence.The McDonnell Douglas framework is used for individual discrimination claims.Equal Protection, 14th Amendment, Scrutiny Standards, Discrimination, Law School, Constitutional Law, Affirmative Action, Judicial Review, Legal Framework, Civil Rights

https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlNavigating the Complexities of Constitutional Law: Federalism and State SovereigntyThis conversation provides a comprehensive overview of critical constitutional law doctrines that define the relationship between state and federal powers. It covers foundational concepts such as due process, preemption, the anti-commandeering doctrine, the dormant commerce clause, and the Pike balancing test, while also addressing modern challenges in federalism and state taxation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these doctrines for legal education and exam preparation.In the realm of constitutional law, the tug-of-war between federal and state powers is a perennial topic of debate and analysis. This dynamic is vividly illustrated in the doctrines of anti-commandeering and the dormant commerce clause, which serve as critical tools for understanding the balance of power in the United States.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Protecting State SovereigntyThe anti-commandeering doctrine is a cornerstone of state sovereignty, ensuring that the federal government cannot coerce states into enforcing federal regulations. This principle was solidified through landmark cases such as New York v. United States and Murphy v. NCAA, which underscore the importance of political accountability and the prevention of federal overreach. By prohibiting the federal government from commandeering state resources, this doctrine maintains a healthy balance of power and protects the autonomy of state governments.The Dormant Commerce Clause: Ensuring a Unified National MarketOn the flip side, the dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting protectionist measures that could fragment the national market. This doctrine is crucial for maintaining economic unity across state lines, as seen in cases like City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey. The Pike balancing test, a key component of this doctrine, evaluates whether a state's regulation imposes an excessive burden on interstate commerce relative to its local benefits. This nuanced analysis is essential for preserving the delicate equilibrium between state interests and national economic cohesion.Modern Implications and ChallengesRecent cases, such as the National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, highlight the ongoing relevance and complexity of these doctrines. The Supreme Court's decision in this case reflects the challenges of applying centuries-old principles to contemporary issues, particularly in an interconnected economy. As states continue to assert their regulatory powers, the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy remains a dynamic and evolving landscape.Understanding the interplay between federal and state powers is crucial for navigating the complexities of constitutional law. As these doctrines continue to shape the legal landscape, they offer valuable insights into the ongoing dialogue between national authority and state sovereignty. For students and practitioners alike, mastering these principles is essential for engaging with the ever-evolving field of constitutional law.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest developments in constitutional law and deepen your understanding of the intricate balance of power in the United States.TakeawaysGovernments can't deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.Procedural due process focuses on fair procedures for deprivation.Substantive due process protects fundamental rights from government interference.Federal law preempts contrary state law, with express and implied preemption.The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal government from forcing states to enact laws.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state commerceConstitutional Law, Federalism, Due Process, Preemption, Anti-Commandeering, Dormant Commerce Clause, Pike Test, State Taxation, Supreme Court, Legal Education

Join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for a tour de force from our friend Prof. Josh Blackman. In the height of the politicization of the judicial branch, the federal courts cannot be reformed through unilateral disarmament, argues Blackman. Rather, any federal judicial reform must be bilateral. Blackman lays out a set of ten proposals for reducing the power both the Right and the Left exert through the judiciary based on a law review article he wrote earlier this year. This episode is an adapted webinar co-sponsored with the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy of First Liberty Institute.Josh Blackman is a national thought leader on constitutional law and the United States Supreme Court. Josh's work was quoted during two presidential impeachment trials. He has testified before Congress and advises federal and state lawmakers. Josh regularly appears on TV, including NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and the BBC. Josh is also a frequent guest on NPR and other syndicated radio programs. He has published commentaries in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and leading national publications. Since 2012, Josh has served as a professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston. He holds the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law. Josh is the Senior Editor of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution (3rd Edition). Josh has written more than seven dozen law review articles that have been cited more than a thousand times. Josh was selected as the Jurist of the Year by the Texas Journal of Law & Public Policy, received the inaugural Meese III Originalism Award from the Heritage Foundation, and was awarded the Inaugural Joseph Story Award. Josh was selected by Forbes Magazine for the “30 Under 30” in Law and Policy. Josh is the President of the Harlan Institute and founded FantasySCOTUS, the Internet's Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League. He blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy and tweets @JoshMBlackman.Read Blackman's article here.

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Federalism: Navigating the Complexities of State and Federal PowerThis conversation delves into the complexities of constitutional law, focusing on federalism and state power. The discussion covers key doctrines such as the anti-commandeering doctrine, preemption under the Supremacy Clause, sovereign immunity, and the dormant commerce clause. Each topic is explored in depth, providing insights into how these legal principles interact and affect the balance of power between state and federal governments. The conversation aims to equip law students with a framework for analyzing federalism issues, particularly in preparation for exams and the bar.Federalism is a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional framework, embodying the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. This intricate dance of power is not just a historical artifact but a living, breathing aspect of American governance that continues to evolve. In this post, we delve into the nuances of federalism, exploring key doctrines and landmark cases that define the boundaries of state and federal power.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: At the heart of federalism lies the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that prevents the federal government from commandeering state governments to enforce federal laws. This doctrine was solidified in cases like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of state autonomy and accountability. The doctrine ensures that states remain independent entities, not mere administrative arms of the federal government.Preemption and the Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. However, the application of this principle is not always straightforward. Preemption can be express, where federal law explicitly overrides state law, or implied, where federal regulation is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state action. Understanding the nuances of preemption is crucial for navigating the legal landscape of federalism.The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Dormant Commerce Clause is an implicit aspect of the Commerce Clause, preventing states from enacting legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This doctrine aims to maintain a national economic union, free from protectionist state policies. However, its application often involves complex judicial balancing, as seen in cases like Pike v. Bruce Church and Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines.Federalism is a dynamic and complex system that requires constant negotiation and interpretation. As we continue to grapple with the balance of power between state and federal governments, understanding these foundational doctrines and their implications is essential. Whether you're a law student preparing for exams or a citizen interested in the workings of government, federalism remains a vital and fascinating area of study. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest developments in constitutional law.TakeawaysLaw students often struggle with applying the correct test in complex fact patterns.The anti-commandeering doctrine preserves state sovereignty by preventing Congress from forcing states to enact federal laws.Preemption ensures federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, based on congressional intent.Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent, emphasizing state dignity.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.Understanding the distinction between express and implied preemption is crucial for legal analysis.constitutional law, federalism, state power, anti-commandeering, preemption, sovereign immunity, dormant commerce clause, legal analysis, bar exam, law school

In this episode, Alex speaks with constitutional scholar Leonid Sirota about the notwithstanding clause—what it does, how it functions within Canada's constitutional architecture, and why its routine use undermines the very rights the Charter is meant to protect. Drawing on arguments from his National Post piece and earlier writing, Sirota explains why Section 33 was intended as an exceptional political safeguard, not a convenient escape hatch for governments, and why treating it as a routine tool erodes constitutionalism, weakens judicial oversight, and shifts the balance of power away from individuals and toward the state. References Leonid Sirota, “Yes, the notwithstanding clause overrides rights. No, it isn't defensible.” — National Post https://nationalpost.com/opinion/leonid-sirota-yes-the-notwithstanding-clause-overrides-rights-no-it-isnt-defensible “The Case Against the Notwithstanding Clause” — Leonid Sirota (Double Aspect) https://doubleaspect.blog/2018/10/04/the-case-against-the-notwithstanding-clause/ “Notwithstanding Myths” — Leonid Sirota (Double Aspect) https://doubleaspect.blog/2025/11/10/notwithstanding-myths/  Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada  https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty_books/219/  The Constitution Act, 1982 (Section 33 — the Notwithstanding Clause) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html  Thanks to Our Patrons Including Kris Rondolo, Amy Willis, and Christopher McDonald. To support The Curious Task, visit: https://patreon.com/curioustask

Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline Understanding Executive Power: A Deep Dive into Constitutional LawThis conversation delves into the complexities of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. It explores the historical and judicial interpretations of presidential power, the role of the Supreme Court in checking executive overreach, and the implications of recent doctrines like the Major Questions Doctrine. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing struggle for power and the evolving nature of constitutional law in the context of American governance.In the realm of constitutional law, the separation of powers is a cornerstone principle that defines the boundaries and interactions between the branches of government. This blog post delves into the complexities of executive power, particularly focusing on Article II and the ongoing tension between presidential authority and congressional checks.The Maximalist vs. Narrow ViewAt the heart of the debate is the interpretation of the vesting clause in Article II, which grants executive power to the President. The maximalist view, rooted in the unitary executive theory, suggests a broad, inherent authority for the President, especially in foreign affairs. In contrast, the narrow view, inspired by James Madison, limits presidential power to explicitly enumerated duties, emphasizing the President's role as an enforcer of laws.Key Judicial InterpretationsThe Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the understanding of executive power. Landmark cases like United States v. Curtis Wright and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer highlight the evolving judicial stance on presidential authority. Justice Jackson's tripartite framework from Youngstown remains a critical tool for analyzing executive power, categorizing presidential actions based on congressional support or opposition.Modern Challenges and DoctrinesIn recent years, the major questions doctrine (MQD) has emerged as a significant check on executive overreach. This doctrine demands clear congressional authorization for executive actions of vast economic and political significance, reinforcing the separation of powers. The MQD, alongside the non-delegation doctrine, underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that executive actions align with legislative intent.The ongoing debate over executive power is not just a theoretical exercise but a living, evolving conflict that shapes American governance. As future constitutional lawyers, understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the legal landscape and ensuring the balance of power remains intact.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest insights in constitutional law and governance.TakeawaysThe separation of powers is a living, evolving conflict.The maximalist view of presidential power suggests inherent authority.Youngstown's framework is essential for analyzing executive power disputes.The president's control over the bureaucracy is a contentious issue.The Appointments Clause distinguishes between principal and inferior officers.Foreign trade agreements often blur the lines of congressional and presidential powers.The Major Questions Doctrine serves as a check on executive overreach.Judicial tools are crucial for maintaining the balance of power.Article II, separation of powers, presidential power, constitutional law, executive orders, Supreme Court, Youngstown, Curtis Wright, major questions doctrine, federal bureaucracy

Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline (https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.html) Understanding Federal Legislative Power: A Deep Dive into the Commerce Clause This episode traces how federal power in the United States expanded and then hit its modern limits through the Commerce Clause. We follow the story from Gibbons v. Ogden to Wickard v. Filburn, and into the era of Lopez, Morrison, and the Affordable Care Act decision, NFIB v. Sebelius. You will hear how the Court went from a broad vision of “commerce” as interstate intercourse, to the aggregation theory that let Congress regulate even a farmer growing wheat for his own family, and then to the modern doctrine that pulls that power back and demands a real connection to economic activity. What we explore in this episode Gibbons v. Ogden and the early, expansive definition of commerce. Wickard v. Filburn as the high-water mark of federal regulatory power. How the Civil Rights Act relied on the Commerce Clause to survive review. United States v. Lopez and Morrison drawing lines around noneconomic activity. NFIB v. Sebelius and why the individual mandate failed under commerce but survived as a tax. Quick Takeaways You need the full “movie” of how Commerce Clause power grew and then contracted. Regulating a farmer feeding his own family was the absolute high watermark of federal power. The Court's logic: if everyone did that, the national market would be distorted. Modern exams turn on recognizing when the pendulum swings back and applying the limits from Lopez and Morrison. Keywords: Commerce Clause, federal power, Gibbons v. Ogden, Wickard v. Filburn, Lopez, Morrison, NFIB v. Sebelius, aggregation theory, legal history, constitutional law.

Lecture Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline (thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.html) Understanding Judicial Review: The Backbone of Constitutional Law This episode dives into the power of judicial review and why it sits at the core of United States constitutional law. We walk through the political brilliance of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the birth of the Court's authority to strike down acts of Congress, and how that decision still frames modern debates about the separation of powers. You will hear how a late–night flurry of “midnight judges,” a refused commission, and a seemingly impossible dilemma gave Marshall the opportunity to announce a simple but revolutionary idea: the Constitution is supreme law, and it is the judiciary's duty to say what the law is. What we unpack in this episode The origin story of judicial review and the stakes in Marbury v. Madison. The “six rules” emerging from Marshall's opinion: remedy, constitutional supremacy, conflict resolution, judicial duty, and review of executive and criminal actions. How Article III justiciability cabins judicial power: no advisory opinions, only real “cases or controversies.” The role of Congress and the Exceptions Clause, including the lesson of Ex parte McCardle. Why some issues are unreviewable political questions left to other branches. Timing, Injury, and Justiciability Judicial power does not extend to every interesting dispute. Timing is everything: come too early and you face a ripeness problem; come too late and the case is moot. The plaintiff also needs a concrete, non-speculative injury to establish standing. When the alleged wrong is a vague “what if,” the Court steps back and the issue often becomes an unreviewable question better suited to the political branches. Across all of this runs a single theme: separation of powers. Judicial review is powerful, but it operates inside a constant negotiation with Congress and the Executive over who decides what, and when. Quick Takeaways Marshall's opinion in Marbury is a blueprint of political genius. Judicial review makes the Constitution enforceable, not just inspirational text. Cases that are too early (ripeness) or too late (mootness) fall outside Article III power. Keywords: judicial review, Marshall's political genius, ripeness, mootness, standing, unreviewable questions, political question doctrine, separation of powers, legal principles, landmark court cases.

Mastering Constitutional Law: A Deep Dive into America's Legal FrameworkThe conversation delves into the fundamental conflict in constitutional law, emphasizing the balance between government power and individual liberty. It highlights the dual role of the Constitution as both a framework for government authority and a protector of personal freedoms. The discussion encourages listeners to analyze legal issues through the lens of this core conflict, asking critical questions about the source of governmental power and the rights it may infringe upon.Imagine stepping into a conversation that has been ongoing for over 200 years—a dialogue about power, liberty, and identity. This is the essence of constitutional law, a subject that is as dynamic as it is foundational. Whether you're preparing for a law school exam or seeking a comprehensive review, understanding constitutional law is crucial.The Blueprint of Power: At its core, the Constitution serves as both a structural blueprint and a charter of liberties. It delineates the distribution of power among the three branches of government—Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary—and between the federal government and the states. This division is intentional, designed to prevent the concentration of power and ensure a system of checks and balances.Judicial Review: A pivotal concept in constitutional law is judicial review, established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. This principle empowers courts to declare laws unconstitutional, ensuring that the Constitution remains a binding framework rather than a mere suggestion.Federalism and the Commerce Clause: Federalism describes the division of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause, granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, has been a focal point of constitutional interpretation, reflecting the tension between national uniformity and state autonomy.The Charter of Liberties: The Constitution also serves as a charter of liberties, protecting individual rights through the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. These rights, including free speech, due process, and equal protection, are the shields against governmental overreach.Constitutional law is not static; it evolves with society, shaped by text, history, and judicial interpretation. As you delve into this subject, remember that you're not just learning rules—you're engaging in a national conversation about the values that define our democracy. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest insights in constitutional law.TakeawaysIt all boils down to one single core conflict.A tug of war between two massive opposing forces.The big showdown is government power versus individual liberty.The Constitution is a blueprint for creating a powerful government.It also serves as a charter of liberties that limits that power.Every fact pattern in law is about this clash.Always ask where the government's power is coming from.Consider what right is being infringed upon.Understanding this concept makes constitutional law clearer.This duality is essential for analyzing legal issues.constitutional law, government power, individual liberty, Constitution, legal principles, civil rights, constitutional conflicts

Show Notes: Trisha Pérez Kennealy describes her initial stint in New York in commercial banking, followed by investment banking and studying to become a chef at Le Cordon Bleu in London, where she lived for three years. She moved back to the United States, settling in Lexington. She has three children and while they were little, she was active in town meetings, became a town official,  and advocated for public education.  In 2010, Trisha bought a property near the Battle Green in Lexington and converted it into a luxury hotel with 22 guest rooms and a restaurant. It opened in 2014 and has since received four stars from Forbes and earned Michelin Keys status. Trisha still runs the inn today.  An Entrepreneurial Spirit Trisha shares that she always knew she would be an entrepreneur, influenced by her Puerto Rican heritage and her father's business. She ran the dance and theater program for Cambridge City School kids during her undergrad years, which was an entrepreneurial endeavor. Trisha admired successful businesspeople who transitioned to public service and felt that her banking experience would be an asset to any entrepreneurial venture. She talks about how her background and family influenced  her love of cooking. She emphasizes the importance of cooking and is a firm believer that food is medicine. She also emphasizes the importance of "breaking bread" as a strong element of building a successful and supportive community. Creative Pursuits and Community Building in the Kitchen Trisha talks about how her background and family influenced  her love of cooking. She emphasizes the importance of cooking and is a firm believer that food is medicine. She also emphasizes the importance of "breaking bread" as a strong element of building a successful and supportive community. Her passion for cooking, developed from a young age, led her to pursue professional chef training at Le Cordon Bleu. Trisha explains that her training at Le Cordon Bleu was technical and applicable to various culinary traditions, not just French cuisine. She talks about finding the best ingredients and how to do as little as possible to the ingredients, and the importance of technique. She explains how she is influenced by her passion for agriculture and local products.  Running a Luxury Inn Trisha describes the Inn at Hastings Park, highlighting its focus on American design aesthetic and high-touch service and the lengths she went to in the design and decor. The restaurant menu is developed with a focus on New England cuisine and offers a well-curated dessert menu. Trisha describes featured items on the menu and discusses the challenges of running a small luxury inn, including the tech-intensive nature of the business and the importance of data management. She emphasizes the value of hiring well-trained staff and being willing to learn and get hands-on with various tasks. Trisha mentions she was surprised to find that it's easier to run a larger property due to fixed costs, but smaller properties offer more personalized service. She highlights the importance of personalization and making guests feel seen and valued, and explains how they have supported long-stay guests during challenging times like medical treatments or family emergencies.  Accolades for the Inn Trisha talks about the impact of receiving a Michelin Key, which brought significant press coverage and increased visibility. She shares her passion for teaching people how to cook through social media, which has led to meaningful interactions with her followers. Trisha describes the importance of making cooking approachable and encouraging people to experiment with recipes. She mentions the success of her social media content, including videos and reels, which have reached a wide audience. The Value of Serving in Public Office Trisha reflects on her role as the Senior Class Gift Chair, which fostered lifelong friendships and a deep commitment to giving back to Harvard. She discusses her involvement in various alumni activities, including serving on the Dean's Advisory Council for the Radcliffe Institute. Trisha shares her experience as a representative for town meetings in Lexington, where she worked on appropriations for the municipality and schools including, zoning policy, and capital expenditures. She emphasizes the importance of civic engagement and the value of serving in public office to bring new perspectives and ideas.  Historical Preservation and Community Engagement Trisha highlights her work on the town's Tourism Committee, which led to the construction of a new visitor center in Lexington. She describes the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, which was celebrated with significant events and community involvement. Trisha shares her pride in preserving the tradition of hospitality in Lexington through the Inn at Hastings Park. She reflects on the importance of historical preservation and community engagement in her work. Harvard Reflections Trisha discusses the impact of the Constitutional Law course with HW Perry, which taught her to explore both sides of an argument and think rigorously. She mentions her admiration for Michael Sandel, who encouraged critical thinking and the exploration of ethical questions. Trisha emphasizes the importance of learning how to think and express opinions at Harvard, which has been valuable in her professional and personal life. She reflects on the broader impact of her Harvard education, which fostered a lifelong commitment to learning and service. Timestamps: 02:46: Entrepreneurial Spirit and Early Influences  09:24: Transition from Banking to Culinary Arts  18:00: Challenges and Lessons in Running a Luxury Inn 25:48: Impact of Michelin Key and Social Media Engagement  29:29: Role as Senior Class Gift Chair and Town Meeting Member  36:05: Significant Projects and Achievements 39:17: Influence of Harvard Courses and Professors Links: Trisha's Instagram: @trishaperezkennealy LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/trishaperezkennealy/ The Inn at Hastings Park: https://www.innathastingspark.com/ Town Meeting Bistro: https://www.innathastingspark.com/dine/town-meeting-bistro/ Hotel Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/innhastingspark/ Featured Non-profit: This week's featured non-profit is brought to you by Somava Saha who reports: " Hi. I'm Somava Saha, class of 1992. The featured nonprofit of this episode of The 92 Report is Well being and Equity in the World, or We in the World. We in the World works to create a more just and abundant future for everybody by unleashing the power and possibility of communities experiencing poverty over the last five years. As founder and CEO, I've gotten to watch over 11,572 jobs created in communities that are experiencing the greatest harm, and watched as those leaders then went on to restore 195,000 years of life for birthdays in those communities, supported a million and a half of their neighbors to be safe and well in the pandemic and restored that at a 30 to one return in investment, far better than would have been possible had somebody else come in to rescue them. In this time that work is needed more than ever. Please come and learn more about us at Well being and Equity in the World or We in the World. That's W, E, I N, T, H, E, W, O, R, L, d.org, and now here's Will Bachman with this week's episode.  To learn more about their work, visit: https://weintheworld.org/   *Show notes and transcript are AI generated.  

Welcome to a Brain Wrinkling Wednesday with Fr. Tom Koys.  Today Father Koys welcomes his guest Martin Doorhy, Attorney, Professor and Colonel in the United States Airforce (Reserves).  Martin is well versed in Constitutional Law, History and World Wars. Together, they delve into the history and role of the Catholic church around several key wars, especially World War I and World War II.  They chat about the relationships between the church and the state across various wars. They also touch on the Catholic church and the role and actions of Pope Pius XII during World War II. St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish  

In this week's roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Ben is joined by Kenji Yoshino, who has the excellent title of Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law and the Director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging. Kenji is also a member of the Oversight Board. Together Ben and Kenji discuss:‘Andrew Tate is dead': inside the minds of 16-year-olds (The Observer)Introducing the Teen Safety Blueprint (OpenAI)OpenAI unveils blueprint for teen AI safety standards (Axios)OpenAI Faces Legal Storm Over Claims Its AI Drove Users to Suicide, Delusions (KQED)Irish watchdog opens content moderation probe into Elon Musk's X (Euractiv)This episode is brought to you by our sponsor CCIA, an international, not-for-profit trade association representing a broad cross section of communications and technology firms and that promotes open markets, open systems, and open networks. Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast from Techdirt and Everything in Moderation. Send us your feedback at podcast@ctrlaltspeech.com and sponsorship enquiries to sponsorship@ctrlaltspeech.com. Thanks for listening.

A 2 minute explanation of a simple way to bring a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision about marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges. A few sentences from the written opinion of a former professor of Constitutional Law at Notre Dame is the key.

A 2 minute explanation of a simple way to bring a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision about marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges. A few sentences from the written opinion of a former professor of Constitutional Law at Notre Dame is the key.

Luke Beck, Professor of Constitutional Law at Monash University & Associate Dean of the Faculty of Law joined 3AW Mornings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Michael M. Uhlmann, LL.B., Ph.D. was my mentor in Constitutional Law for over a decade and convinced me not to go to law school but instead to study public law as a Ph.D. student, which I did. Here, we do an excursus on the Chevron Deference Deep Dive series on The Republican Professor podcast. We have Uhlmann on a book by Peter Wallison called "Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Reign in the Administrative State." It's about Republicans calling for a revival of the non-delegation doctrine for the purpose of protecting individual liberty. We're going to make a fair use and do a transformative reading of the piece. Dr. Uhlmann died just months after this was published and so we are unable to have him as a guest on the podcast. We'd like to thank Claremont Review of Books for publishing Mike's "Full Court Press," the piece we interact with here, on Wallison's book. Go to ClaremontReviewofBooks.com for subscription options, and throw some support their way. You can find Summer 2019's "Full Court Press" written by Dr. Uhlmann there. We'd like to thank the late great Michael M. Uhlmann for his mentorship and professorship and for writing this, bringing this wonderful Wallison book to our attention. Go out and buy a copy of the Wallison book -- his books are excellent. What Wallison was calling for in that book partially took place last year when Republicans on the US Supreme Court reversed 1984's (no pun intended) Chevron decision. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-protecting-individual-liberty podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This week, the Supreme Court began hearing a historic case which will decide whether President Trump acted lawfully when he imposed "emergency" tariffs against the world. Harrison Lowman speaks to Geoffrey Sigalet, director of the UBC Research Group for Constitutional Law about how he thinks the court might rule, and whether the Trump administration will have to pay back $100 billion in tariffs.   The Hub is Canada's fastest growing independent digital news outlet.   Subscribe to The Hub's podcast feed to get our best content when you are on the go:  https://tinyurl.com/3a7zpd7e (Apple) https://tinyurl.com/y8akmfn7 (Spotify)  Want more Hub? Get a FREE 3-month trial membership on us: https://thehub.ca/free-trial/ Follow The Hub on X: https://x.com/thehubcanada?lang=en   CREDITS: Amal Attar-Guzman - Producer Elia Gross - Sound Editor Harrison Lowman - Host   To contact us, sign up for updates, and access transcripts email support@thehub.ca.    

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana's redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR's Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what's at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana's case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn't just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Right-wing operatives continue to target diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Through a growing web of hostile executive orders, state bans, and private lawsuits, enemies of diversity are using law to chill discussion of race, gender, sexuality, and other "divisive" concepts. In the face of these attacks, diversity defenders are turning to the First Amendment — and in many cases, they are winning. Taonga Leslie is joined by practitioners from across the country to explore strategies for using First Amendment principles and precedent to strengthen DEI programs going forward and highlight recent wins.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Taonga Leslie, Director of Policy and Program for Racial JusticeGuest: Katy Youker, Director, Economic Justice Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump)Guest: Lawrence Lustberg, Director, John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest & Constitutional Law, Gibbons P.C. (Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association)Guest: Robert McDuff, Director of the George Riley Impact Litigation Initiative, Mississippi Center for Justice (Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch)Link: The First Amendment in Flux, ACS 2025-2026 Program GuideLink: Using the First Amendment to Uphold DEI Initiatives, by Christopher Lucca and Vanessa HuberLink: Protecting Our PurposeLink: The Legal DEI ProjectVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

What are parental rights? Are they a legal stance—or a philosophical one? In today's conversation, Dr. Melissa Moschella of the University of Notre Dame discusses the profound and practical implications of the parent-child relationship. She then explores how those conclusions operate in the American legal tradition, tracing from natural law to John Locke to historic court cases and the public discourse today. Chapters: 3:46 True rights imply true duties 10:04 Natural law: knowable through reason 15:00 The rights and duties of parents 22:32 Role of the state in the American tradition 28:44 Twentieth-century shift, John Rawls 37:29 Whether schools can be value-neutral 43:34 Parental rights in American courts 46:47 Beyond religious liberty 55:00 School choice as parental choice 1:00:57 Public discourse: how to talk to friends, family, neighbors 1:05:30 Her book on natural law Links: Melissa Moschella, Ph.D., McGrath Institute for Church Life at Notre Dame To Whom Do Children Belong? Parental Rights, Civic Education, and Children's Autonomy by Melissa Moschella Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law: Principles for Human Flourishing by Melissa Moschella Democratic Education by Amy Guttman (argued against by Dr. Moschella) Brief of Amica Curiae in Support of Petitioners by Melissa Moschella “Nonreligious Parents Have Rights Too,” WSJ op-ed by Melissa Moschella Also on the Forum: The Mortara Case: Parental Authority and Thomas Aquinas featuring Dr. Matthew Tapie and Dr. Lionel Yaceczko Parents as Primary Educators by Michael Moynihan Featured Opportunities: Fathers' Conference at The Heights School (November 1, 2025) The Art of Teaching Boys Conference at The Heights School (January 7-9, 2026 / May 6-8, 2026)

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Paul Lisnek, Political and Legal Analyst for WGN-TV in Chicago. The pair examines the ICE invasion of the 'Windy City' by the Trump administration, as well as Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's response. Then, Brad is joined by Tara Devlin, host of the 'TARABUSTER' podcast. They analyze the impact of the 'No Kings' protest against Trump's imperial presidency, including the staggering turnout of roughly seven million attendees at 2,600 events in all 50 states. The two also discuss President Trump's pardon of former Congressman George Santos, who was sentenced to 87 months in prison after pleading guilty to misusing campaign funds and stealing identities. Paul Lisnek anchors “Political Report” every Sunday morning at 9am central which looks at national and local issues for Chicago. It can be live streamed on www.wgntv.com/live and watched on the new WGN+ app which can be downloaded thru Apple TV, Roku or Firestick. Paul has worked as a jury consultant in such cases as OJ Simpson and Whitewater, teaches Constitutional Law and Ethics for the bar review course. He is the author of 15 books including the award winning fiction book: "Assume Treason." Tara Devlin is a New York City based comedian, writer, and host of the unapologetically-liberal podcast "TARABUSTER.” Tarabuster is 5-star viewer-reviewed and 100% viewer-supported. Help keep the REAL liberal media going – and growing – by becoming a Patron of Tarabuster at Patreon.com/TaraDevlin. You can follow Tara on BlueSky at @tarabuster.bsky.social and on Instagram at @Taradacktyl. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Paul Lisnek, Political and Legal Analyst for WGN-TV in Chicago. The pair examines the ICE invasion of the 'Windy City' by the Trump administration, as well as Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's response. Then, Brad is joined by Tara Devlin, host of the 'TARABUSTER' podcast. The analyze the impact of the 'No Kings' protest against Trump's imperial presidency, including the staggering turnout of roughly seven million attendees at 2,600 events in all 50 states. The two also discuss President Trump's pardon of former Congressman George Santos, who was sentenced to 87 months in prison after pleading guilty to misusing campaign funds and stealing identities. Paul Lisnek anchors “Political Report” every Sunday morning at 9am central which looks at national and local issues for Chicago. It can be live streamed on www.wgntv.com/live and watched on the new WGN+ app which can be downloaded thru Apple TV, Roku or Firestick. Paul has worked as a jury consultant in such cases as OJ Simpson and Whitewater, teaches Constitutional Law and Ethics for the bar review course. He is the author of 15 books including the award winning fiction book: "Assume Treason." Tara Devlin is a New York City based comedian, writer, and host of the unapologetically-liberal podcast "TARABUSTER.” Tarabuster is 5-star viewer-reviewed and 100% viewer-supported. Help keep the REAL liberal media going – and growing – by becoming a Patron of Tarabuster at Patreon.com/TaraDevlin. You can follow Tara on BlueSky at @tarabuster.bsky.social and on Instagram at @Taradacktyl. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.

When politics drives prosecutions, what happens to the rule of law? Are we in uncharted waters? Stanford Legal host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with her colleague criminal justice expert Robert Weisberg to unpack the extraordinary federal indictments of former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—with more potentially on the way.Weisberg, the Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, explains how grand jury indictments normally work, why these cases are unusual, and how selective and vindictive prosecution claims might play out when the evidence of political motivation is broadcast via Truth Social missives. Karlan and Weisberg also discuss how Justice Department norms separating the White House from individual charging decisions have been systematically broken—and why these indictments, built on shaky legal ground and thin narratives, could face serious procedural challenges.Links:Robert Weisberg >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Targeted Prosecutions (00:10:00) Understanding Selective vs. Vindictive Prosecution (00:20:00) Comey Indictment and Related Current Events (00:27:00) John Bolton's Legal Troubles (00:34:00) Potential Challenges for Adam Schiff  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Jeff points out the ridiculousness of the belief that President Trump has brought peace to the Middle East with the ceasefire agreement he got Israel and Hamas to sign. There is a mountain of evidence which makes clear that this ceasefire is simply a lull until the next war. In the meantime, the leftists/terrorists are making massive inroads into America and our failure to cut off the head of the terror snake will be our country's greatest failure in the not so distant future.In other news, Bruce Cutler has passed, at one point the most famous lawyer in the world. Bruce also was the lawyer who had a large part in getting Jeff to drop Pre-med in college and go to law school. In this podcast, Jeff recounts some very funny Bruce stories from years past. RIP Bruce.

Justin Wales, Head of Legal for the Americas at Crypto.com, and author of The Crypto Legal Handbook visits the show to provide his unique perspective on pivoting from a career in Constitutional Law, including work on high-profile appellate cases like the Obergefell gay marriage decision, to becoming a trailblazer in crypto law and blockchain technology.  He shares his serendipitous journey stemming from a law school article that launched his legal career and his subsequent deep dive into crypto, sparked by WikiLeaks accepting Bitcoin donations. The discussion covers the evolution of his practice to one of the first successful crypto legal groups at a large law firm. Justin emphasizes the necessity for any lawyer in the space to use the technology and become a generalist to navigate the multi-jurisdictional and rapidly evolving industry.  Finally, the conversation touches on the critical distinction between centralized finance (CeFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi), and his outlook that crypto's infrastructure will ultimately serve as the underpinning for future advancements like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT). Episode Highlights:  * Justin's start in Constitutional Law, beginning with a law school paper on unconscionable cruise ship employment contracts that led to Supreme Court brief writing.  * The shift to crypto law: WikiLeaks and Bitcoin's role in it introduced Justin to blockchain technology.  * Building a pioneering crypto legal practice at a large firm in the early days (2013-2015).  * Why the best in-house lawyers, especially in a cutting-edge field like crypto, need to be generalists, not hyper-specialized.  * The inspiration and philosophy behind writing The Crypto Legal Handbook—creating an affordable, regularly updated, and candid resource for students and practitioners.  * Advice for aspiring crypto lawyers today: the field is more mature and requires blending traditional financial regulatory expertise with an industry-wide approach.  * The fundamental distinction between Centralized Finance (CeFi) and the legally complex, more innovative world of Decentralized Finance (DeFi).  * Rule #1 for Crypto Lawyers: Why you must use the technology and the risks of lawyers who are frozen in time with their technical understanding.  * High-level overview of US policy efforts to regulate crypto, including the GENIUS Act (Stablecoins) and the Clarity Act (Securities vs. Commodities regulation).  * Justin's crystal ball: The long-term view that crypto infrastructure will eventually become an unseen layer beneath the rise of AI agents and IoT.   Things We Talk About in this Episode    * Book: The Crypto Legal Handbook by Justin Wales  * Book: Read Write Own by Chris Dixon  * JustinWales.com (for more information on the book and author)  

It's Wednesday, October 8th, 2025, late morning, and for those following Donald Trump's latest legal battles, the pace has barely slowed. If you've been glued to the news these past few days, courtrooms from California all the way to Washington, D.C. have seen Trump's lawyers and prosecutors trading volleys over his actions as president and well into his post-presidency.The big headline out west came from California, where a federal judge issued a strongly worded ruling against Donald Trump after his attempt to deploy the California National Guard into Oregon. According to the governor's office, the judge—ironically appointed by Trump himself—rebuked the idea that a president could override state authority this way, reminding all parties that the “historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” In her order, she found the Trump administration's arguments “simply untethered to the facts” and declared that statements justifying the deployments “were not conceived in good faith.” That resulted in a direct rebuke to Trump's approach and another layer of judicial reinforcement of state rights.Meanwhile, on the federal front, the Supreme Court's October term is shaping up to be a blockbuster for Trump-related litigation. SCOTUSblog reported on Monday that the justices added five new cases to their docket for the 2025-26 term. While the full list hasn't dropped yet, legal analysts expect at least one to touch directly on former President Trump's use and possible abuse of executive powers—Marc Elias and Neal Katyal have both appeared on cable news speculating about how these cases could clarify ambiguous boundaries around presidential immunity and what's meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”Lawfare's Litigation Tracker, which has become almost a reference Bible for the ‘Trump trial industrial complex,' continues to log new lawsuits and appeals nearly every week. National security-related executive actions, especially around border policy and federal troop deployment, remain hotly contested in district and appellate courts. Just yesterday, reporters in D.C. spotted Trump's legal team in the courthouse, trying to negotiate further delays by arguing that the core issues have ‘never before been tested by the courts.' That's turned the federal judiciary into an arena not just for Trump's legal future but also for the broader definition of presidential power in America.If you think the story's about to wind down, think again. With upcoming hearings and new filings announced daily, this remains the most scrutinized courtroom saga in modern history.Thanks for tuning in today. Make sure to come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On the Second Anniversary of the October 7 Massacre: The Role of $21.7 Billion in U.S. Military Aid | The Trump Judge Who Blocked His Deployment to Portland Saying "This is a Nation of Constitutional Law, Not Martial Law" | Cory Doctorow on How the Digital World Has Turned to S**T backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia bsky.app/profile/ianmastersmedia.bsky.social facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

How do we reconcile our expectations with God's unfolding plan? In this episode, Professor Derek Sainsbury explores the remarkable life of Nancy Naomi Tracy–a woman whose unwavering faith and bold defense of religious liberty and temple service helped shape the early Latter-day Saint experience. Through persecution, political exile, and personal loss, Nancy remained devoted to the gospel. Professor Sainsbury draws from her writings and activism to reveal how she navigated the tension between personal hopes and divine direction, offering a compelling lens into the cost of conviction and the legacy of spiritual resilience.  Publications: “‘We Have Not Been Allowed to Worship as We Please': Nancy Naomi Tracy and the Denial of Latter-day Saint Religious Liberty,” in Religious Liberty and Latter-day Saints: Historical and Global Perspectives (Religious Studies Center, 2023) Joseph Smith as a Visionary: Heavenly Manifestations in the Latter Days (Religious Studies Center, 2025) "Befriending the Constitutional Law of the Land" in Doctrine and Coveants Insights: Capstone of Doctrinal Understanding (Religious Studies Center, 2025) Storming the Nation: The Unknown Contributions of Joseph Smith's Political Missionaries (Religious Studies Center, 2020) “‘For the General Good of Mankind': Why Joseph Smith's Presidential Campaign Matters,” Religious Educator, 21.3 (2020)  Click here to learn more about Derek Sainsbury

On Thursday's show: From ABC pulling Jimmy Kimmel off the air, to firings and reviews of Texas public school teachers and staff, what some have said about the shooting of Charlie Kirk has come back to bite them. But is it all legal? A constitutional law professor explains the nuances.Also this hour: We explore how a new law is affecting what public school nurses can and cannot do for sick students.Then, are some public schools too intent on finding that next "star principal" to lead them?And we reflect on the legacy of Rice University's Shepherd School of Music as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.Watch

In this podcast, Jeff discusses the assassination of Charlie Kirk by yet another deranged leftist shooter. As disturbing as the shooting was, the celebrations from the left — which included professionals, teacher and health care providers — were even more troubling. Jeff discusses what needs to come next if we are to avoid sliding into the abyss as a country.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the high-stakes legal battle over the attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Jessica explains the Trump administration's push to fire Cook, the court's decision to reinstate her, and the looming emergency appeal. Tune in as we explore the legal protections for Fed governors, the fight over presidential power, and why this showdown could impact both the central bank's independence and the broader economy.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Legal Battle Over Federal Reserve Independence: Jessica discusses the attempt by the Trump administration to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. She explains this centers on whether a president can remove a sitting Fed governor and under what circumstances, which is a pivotal question about the independence of the central bank.The Law and Statutory Interpretation: The conversation delves into the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal of board members “for cause.” There's debate on what “for cause” means—whether it should be restricted to on-the-job misconduct or include actions before taking office. The district court judge sided with the narrower reading, that it should only pertain to conduct while in office.Due Process and Rights of the Removed Official: A significant part of the discussion is about whether Lisa Cook was given due process. The judge found she likely wasn't given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations, which could be a violation of her rights.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Every week, headlines tell us that a single federal judge has blocked a presidential order—sometimes halting major policies for years. But should that be possible? Is it democratic?In this episode, we dig into the rise and fall of universal injunctions—a little-known legal tool that allowed one judge to freeze nationwide policy. With a recent Supreme Court decision, those injunctions are now off the table, but the ruling raises bigger questions: Has the Court consolidated power for itself? What does this mean for the balance between the executive branch, lower courts, and the justices in Washington?We talk with Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law professor, to unpack the legal mechanics, political stakes, and the hidden negotiations between the Supreme Court and the presidency. The result is a story about law, politics, and power that goes far beyond the headlines.

Preview: Guest name: Professor Josh Blackman. Professor Josh Blackman (Josh Blackman holds the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston and is a contributing editor to Civitas Outlook.) discussed Supreme Court recommendations for lower courts not to uniformly reverse presidential executive orders. Justice Kavanaugh described these as "interim orders," as the Supreme Court cannot wait three years for cases when issues arise daily. Lower courts, especially in Boston, are often not listening. 1937 SCOTUS

0:30 - Trump: not going to war with Chicago, you second-rate reporter 21:45 - Steven Sund, former Capitol Police Chief, on DC’s federal task force success and the untold truths of Jan. 6. Steven is also the author of Courage Under Fire: The Definitive Account from Inside the Capitol on January 6 41:22 - Steven Bucci, visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, makes the case for pressure on the UK to stop silencing speech and undermining democracy 01:01:51 - Why Dan Proft is single 01:20:10 - Paul Vallas, CEO of the McKenzie Foundation and previously served as CEO of Chicago Public Schools, reveals the results Chicago gets for its staggering $32,000 per-student price tag. Follow Paul on X @PaulVallas 01:38:36 - Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston and is a contributing editor to Civitas Outlook, Josh Blackman, on Trump's legal battles and The Failed Lower Court Revolt. For more from Josh civitasinstitute.orgSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 2015, the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land. However, for the first time in over five years, Kim Davis (an opponent of same-sex marriage) petitioned for a writ of certiorari to overturn Obergefell. Is there a possibility the court will revisit its finding? How does this decision compare to other recently overturned decisions like Roe v Wade? And is even talking about this a problem in itself??Talking us through the situation and possible scenarios is Danaya Wright, Professor in Constitutional Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!