Podcasts about Constitutional law

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

This conversation delves into the complexities of American federalism and constitutional law, focusing on the powers of Congress under the 13th and 14th Amendments, the concept of state sovereign immunity, and the mechanisms available to overcome this immunity. The discussion highlights landmark cases that shape the understanding of these legal principles and emphasizes the ongoing tension between state rights and federal enforcement of civil rights.In the intricate dance of governance, the balance of power between federal authority and state immunity is a pivotal theme. This dynamic interplay shapes the legal and political landscape, influencing everything from policy implementation to individual rights. Let's delve into this complex relationship and explore its implications.Federal Authority: Federal authority is rooted in the Constitution, granting the national government the power to regulate interstate commerce, levy taxes, and provide for the common defense. This centralized power ensures uniformity and cohesion across states, enabling the federal government to address national issues effectively.State Immunity: Conversely, state immunity is a principle that protects states from certain legal actions, preserving their sovereignty. This concept is enshrined in the Eleventh Amendment, which limits the ability of individuals to sue states in federal court. State immunity serves as a check on federal power, allowing states to govern independently within their borders.The Tension: The tension between federal authority and state immunity often surfaces in legal battles and policy debates. Issues such as healthcare, environmental regulations, and civil rights frequently test the boundaries of this balance. Courts play a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and mediating conflicts, ensuring that neither federal nor state power becomes overbearing.The balance of power between federal authority and state immunity is a cornerstone of American governance. It requires constant negotiation and adaptation to address evolving societal needs. As we navigate this complex landscape, understanding the nuances of this relationship is essential for informed civic engagement.Subscribe Now: Stay informed on the latest developments in governance and law. Subscribe for more insights and analysis.TakeawaysThe core of American federalism revolves around the tension between Congress and states.Congress's power to enforce laws is primarily derived from the 14th Amendment.The 13th Amendment grants Congress broader powers to legislate against private discrimination.Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent.The 11th Amendment establishes a broad shield against lawsuits from citizens of other states.Congress can abrogate state immunity under certain conditions, particularly through Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.The congruence and proportionality test is crucial for Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment.Ex parte Young allows for suits against state officials for prospective relief.Conditional funding can be a tool for Congress to influence state compliance with federal law.The balance of power between Congress and the courts raises questions about the effectiveness of federal law enforcement. federalism, constitutional law, Congress, 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, sovereign immunity, state action, legal remedies, Supreme Court, civil rights

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of the Fifth Amendment, focusing on the due process protections and the takings clause. It explores the historical context of these legal principles, key cases that have shaped their interpretation, and the distinctions between procedural and substantive due process. The discussion delves into regulatory takings, categorical takings, and the Penn Central test, providing insights into how courts analyze these issues. Additionally, it addresses the complexities of temporary takings and exactions, emphasizing the importance of fair compensation and the evolving challenges in environmental law.The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a cornerstone of American legal principles, safeguarding individual rights against government overreach. Among its provisions, the Takings Clause stands out as a critical element, ensuring that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. This blog post explores the intricacies of the Fifth Amendment and the Takings Clause, shedding light on their significance and impact on property rights.Understanding the Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and provides several protections for individuals, including the right to due process, protection against double jeopardy, and the right against self-incrimination. However, one of its most debated components is the Takings Clause, which addresses the balance between public needs and private property rights.The Takings Clause Explained: The Takings Clause states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This clause ensures that when the government needs to acquire private property for public purposes, such as building infrastructure or public facilities, it must provide fair compensation to the property owner. The clause raises important questions about what constitutes "public use" and how "just compensation" is determined.Key Court Cases and Interpretations: Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Takings Clause in various landmark cases. One notable case is Kelo v. City of New London (2005), where the Court ruled that economic development can be considered a public use under the Takings Clause. This decision sparked widespread debate and led to legislative changes in several states to protect property owners.The Fifth Amendment and the Takings Clause play a vital role in balancing the interests of the public and private property owners. As legal interpretations evolve, these provisions continue to shape the landscape of property rights in the United States. Understanding their implications is crucial for anyone interested in constitutional law and property rights.Subscribe Now: Stay informed about the latest developments in constitutional law and property rights by subscribing. Don't miss out on insightful analysis and expert commentary.TakeawaysThe Fifth Amendment's property provisions can be complex.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The takings clause requires just compensation for property taken.Historical cases like Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad are crucial for understanding incorporation.Regulatory takings can occur without physical seizure of property.The Loretto case established a clear rule for permanent physical occupations.The Lucas case defined total deprivation of economic use as a categorical taking.The Penn Central test provides a flexible framework for analyzing regulatory takings.Temporary takings require compensation for the period of denial.Exactions must meet the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests.Fifth Amendment, due process, takings clause, regulatory takings, property rights, compensation, Penn Central, Loretto, Lucas, exactions

This conversation delves into the complexities of constitutional law, focusing on the privileges and immunities clauses, substantive due process, equal protection, and the contract clause. The discussion aims to clarify these intricate legal concepts, providing historical context, key cases, and practical insights for students preparing for exams. The interconnectedness of these topics is emphasized, highlighting how changes in one area can influence others.Dive into the fascinating world of constitutional law as we explore the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the 14th Amendment. Discover how these clauses shape the rights of citizens across state lines and their impact on modern legal interpretations. Join us for an insightful discussion that unravels the complexities and historical significance of these pivotal constitutional provisions.Join us as we delve into the intricate world of Substantive Due Process and Fundamental Rights. Explore how these legal principles protect individual freedoms and shape the landscape of American constitutional law. From landmark Supreme Court cases to contemporary debates, this episode unpacks the evolution and significance of these critical doctrines in safeguarding our liberties.Explore the dynamic interplay between the Equal Protection Clause and the State Action Doctrine in this enlightening episode. We unravel how these legal concepts work together to ensure fairness and justice under the law. From historical roots to modern applications, discover the pivotal role they play in shaping civil rights and addressing discrimination in the United States.Join us as we journey through the historical evolution and modern interpretation of the Contract Clause. Discover how this constitutional provision has shaped economic relationships and legal frameworks from the founding era to today. We delve into landmark cases and contemporary debates, revealing the enduring impact of the Contract Clause on American law and commerce.TakeawaysThe privileges and immunities clauses are often misunderstood, with two distinct clauses to consider.Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause protects individual citizens, not corporations.The 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause has a complicated history, especially post-Civil War.Substantive due process focuses on the government's justification for infringing on fundamental rights.Levels of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, rational basis) are crucial for analyzing constitutional issues.Key cases like Meyer v. Nebraska and Griswold v. Connecticut illustrate the evolution of substantive due process.The equal protection clause requires state action to address discrimination.Facially neutral laws can still be discriminatory if intent is proven.The contract clause was initially a strong protection for contracts but has weakened over time.Current interpretations of the contract clause allow for significant state interference under certain conditions.constitutional law, privileges and immunities, substantive due process, equal protection, contract clause, legal rights, state action, levels of scrutiny, fundamental rights, legal history

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of the First Amendment, focusing on its key principles, historical context, and the evolution of its interpretation. The discussion covers the incorporation doctrine, freedom of speech, the distinction between content-based and content-neutral restrictions, and the various tiers of scrutiny applied in legal analysis. Imagine sitting in your constitutional law class, surrounded by casebooks and notes, with the First Amendment staring back at you like a complex puzzle. This cornerstone of our legal system is not only fundamental to understanding American law but also a critical component of law school exams and the bar. Let's delve into the key principles of the First Amendment and how they apply in legal exams.Understanding the Text: The First Amendment guarantees fundamental freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It begins with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law," explicitly limiting federal legislative power. However, the Supreme Court has recognized implied rights beyond the explicit text, such as the freedom of association and belief, which are crucial for exam analysis.Incorporation Doctrine: Initially, the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, applied only to the federal government. The incorporation doctrine, through the Fourteenth Amendment, extended these protections to state and local governments. Understanding this historical context is vital for a complete legal analysis.Freedom of Speech: The bedrock principle of freedom of speech is that it is generally presumed to be protected unless it falls within specific exceptions. This presumption is rooted in the idea of a marketplace of ideas, where the government cannot restrict expression based on its message, ideas, subject matter, or content.Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Restrictions: A critical aspect of First Amendment analysis is distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral restrictions. Content-based restrictions regulate speech because of its message and are presumptively unconstitutional, facing strict scrutiny. Content-neutral restrictions regulate something other than the content and are subject to intermediate scrutiny.Forum Analysis: The physical location of speech profoundly impacts its protection. Traditional public forums, like streets and parks, receive the strongest protections, while non-public forums, like military bases, receive the least. Understanding forum analysis is crucial for setting up exam analysis.Exceptions to Protected Speech: Certain categories of speech, such as incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and obscenity, receive no or limited First Amendment protection. Knowing these exceptions is essential for tackling First Amendment hypotheticals.Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment also encompasses the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, which have evolved significantly. The Establishment Clause prohibits government promotion of religion, while the Free Exercise Clause protects individual religious liberty. Understanding the dynamic interpretation of these clauses is key for exams.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and exam tips!TakeawaysThe First Amendment is foundational to American law.Historical context is crucial for understanding constitutional rights.Incorporation doctrine applies federal rights to state actions.Freedom of speech is generally protected unless it falls into specific exceptions.Content-based restrictions face strict scrutiny, while content-neutral ones face intermediate scrutiny.Forum analysis is essential for determining speech protections.Certain categories of speech are unprotected or less protected.First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, constitutional law, legal analysis, incorporation doctrine, speech restrictions, public forums, commercial speech, government speech

This conversation delves into the foundational aspects of constitutional law, focusing on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. It explores their historical significance, judicial interpretations, and real-world applications, emphasizing the importance of understanding these concepts for aspiring legal professionals. The discussion also highlights the evolving nature of individual rights and the complexities of judicial scrutiny in contemporary legal challenges.Imagine a world where the government could seize your home without notice or where laws discriminated based on race or gender. These scenarios, reminiscent of dystopian fiction, highlight the importance of constitutional safeguards in American legal history. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are pivotal in protecting against such injustices.Historical Origins and Judicial Interpretation: The 14th Amendment, adopted post-Civil War, reshaped the relationship between individuals and the government. It aimed to secure rights for freed slaves, but its impact extends far beyond, forming the basis for landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges. The Due Process Clause, appearing in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments, ensures fairness from both federal and state governments. It has been interpreted expansively, covering life, liberty, and property in ways that affect modern administrative law.Procedural vs. Substantive Due Process: Procedural due process guarantees fair procedures when the government acts against an individual, asking "what process is due?" Landmark cases like Goldberg v. Kelly and Matthews v. Eldridge illustrate the evolving standards of procedural fairness. Substantive due process, on the other hand, protects fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution, challenging the inherent fairness of laws themselves. This concept has been pivotal in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.Equal Protection Clause: The Equal Protection Clause promises that no state shall deny any person equal protection under the law. It focuses on who the government treats differently and ensures that any classification is justified by strong constitutional reasons. The clause has been central in cases involving race, gender, and sexual orientation, applying varying levels of judicial scrutiny to assess the fairness of laws.The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are dynamic doctrines, continually shaped by societal challenges and judicial interpretation. They not only protect established rights but also provide a framework for future generations to challenge discrimination and assert evolving understandings of liberty. As society changes, these clauses remain vital in demanding justice and fairness.TakeawaysThe fight against injustices is essential to American legal history.The 14th Amendment reshaped the relationship between individuals and government.Due Process and Equal Protection are critical for individual rights.Understanding procedural vs. substantive due process is vital for legal analysis.The Equal Protection Clause prevents purposeful discrimination.Judicial scrutiny varies based on the classification involved.Rational basis review is the most lenient standard for government actions.Strict scrutiny applies to laws affecting suspect classes or fundamental rights.The right to travel encompasses multiple distinct rights.Felony disenfranchisement policies are subject to ongoing debate and reform.Constitutional Law, Due Process, Equal Protection, 14th Amendment, Judicial Scrutiny, Individual Rights, Legal History, Civil Rights, American Law, Supreme Court

Nominations for the Presidential Election close at 12 noon today. Three candidates are confirmed for the ballot paper with Maria Steen two short for a nomination. Ivan was joined in the studio by our panel to discuss these closing stages. In studio was John Lee, Executive Editor, Irish Daily Mail, Sinéad O'Carroll, Editor, The Journal and Dr Tom Hickey, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, School of Law and Government, DCU.

This conversation delves into the intricate dynamics of federalism in American law, exploring the balance of power between federal and state governments. It covers the foundational principles of federalism, its evolution over time, the ongoing power struggles, and the specific powers of Congress. The discussion also highlights the protections states have against federal overreach and the implications of the dormant commerce clause.Federalism, a cornerstone of American governance, is a dynamic dance between federal and state power. This intricate system, born from the failures of the Articles of Confederation, aims to balance authority and protect liberty. As law students and enthusiasts, understanding this balance is crucial for navigating legal landscapes and exams.The Birth of Federalism: Federalism emerged as a practical solution to the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which left the central government toothless and states acting like rival nations. The framers, recognizing the need for a stronger central authority, crafted a system where states retained political independence within a unified national framework, creating what is known as dual sovereignty.Key Landmark Cases:McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established federal supremacy and implied powers, asserting that states cannot obstruct legitimate federal actions. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Expanded federal power over interstate commerce, reinforcing Congress's broad regulatory authority. United States v. Darby (1941): Overturned previous limitations on Congress's commerce power, marking a shift towards cooperative federalism.Evolving Federalism: Federalism has evolved from the clear-cut divisions of dual federalism to the intertwined responsibilities of cooperative federalism. The Great Depression catalyzed this shift, demonstrating the need for federal intervention in economic crises. Today, federalism continues to adapt, with modern policy fights and venue shopping by interest groups reshaping the federal-state balance.Modern Challenges and Doctrines:Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Protects state autonomy by preventing the federal government from commandeering state legislative processes. Sovereign Immunity: Shields states from being sued without consent, with exceptions like congressional abrogation under the 14th Amendment. Dormant Commerce Clause: Implicitly limits state actions that interfere with interstate commerce, promoting a national common market.Federalism is not static; it's a living framework reflecting societal debates on issues like immigration, healthcare, and environmental regulation. As future legal professionals, mastering the doctrines and landmark cases of federalism will equip you to navigate and shape the ongoing story of American governance.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and deepen your understanding of federalism's evolving landscape.TakeawaysFederalism is a dynamic balance that shifts over time.The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states.The evolution from dual federalism to cooperative federalism reflects societal changes.Key Supreme Court cases shape the understanding of federalism.Congress's spending power is broad but has limitations.The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to enact laws to execute its powers.States have shields against federal power, including sovereign immunity.The anti-commandeering doctrine protects state legislative processes.The dormant commerce clause limits state laws that interfere with interstate commerce.Understanding these concepts is crucial for law students and practitioners.federalism, American law, state power, Congress, dual sovereignty, cooperative federalism, constitutional law, legal disputes, Supreme Court, state sovereignty

This conversation delves into the complexities of the American judicial system, focusing on the judicial branch's powers, the concept of judicial review, and the critical justiciability doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness. It explores the intricate balance of powers between the branches of government, the evolution of federalism, and the impact of the administrative presidency. The discussion also highlights the ongoing debates surrounding judicial interpretation, restraint, and activism, emphasizing the dynamic nature of constitutional law.In the intricate tapestry of the American legal system, the judicial branch stands as a pillar of interpretation and authority. For law students and legal enthusiasts, understanding the nuances of judicial power and constitutional interpretation is crucial. This exploration delves into the foundational elements of Article 3, the pivotal role of judicial review, and the dynamic interplay of separation of powers and federalism.The Essence of Judicial Power: Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution lays the groundwork for judicial authority, defining the scope and limitations of federal courts. This isn't merely a list of cases; it's a profound limitation on judicial power, ensuring that courts only intervene in genuine legal controversies. The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, empowering courts to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.Justiciability Doctrines: The doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness serve as gatekeepers, ensuring that courts address only real, concrete disputes. These principles prevent the judiciary from overstepping into political questions or hypothetical scenarios, maintaining the delicate balance of power among the branches of government.Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The framers of the Constitution meticulously designed a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too dominant. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches each have distinct roles, with reciprocal powers to check one another. Historical examples, such as the court-packing attempt by FDR and the War Powers Act, illustrate the dynamic tension and negotiation inherent in this system.Federalism and the Evolving Landscape: Federalism, the division of power between national and state governments, is a core tenet of the American constitutional framework. The balance of power is constantly negotiated, influenced by political, social, and technological changes. The rise of the administrative presidency and the Supreme Court's role in mediating federalism disputes highlight the ongoing evolution of this relationship.The journey through judicial power and constitutional interpretation is one of complexity and constant reevaluation. For law students, mastering these doctrines and understanding their historical and contemporary applications is essential. As the legal landscape continues to shift, a deep grasp of these principles will serve as an anchor, enabling critical thinking and persuasive argumentation in an ever-changing world.Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest insights in constitutional law and beyond.TakeawaysUnderstanding the judicial branch is foundational to constitutional law.Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, is a key power of the judiciary.Justiciability doctrines like standing, ripeness, and mootness are essential for legal arguments.Separation of powers and checks and balances are crucial to prevent tyranny.Federalism balances state and federal powers, with ongoing debates about their limits.The rise of the administrative presidency has shifted power dynamics in federalism.judicial branch, judicial review, justiciability doctrines, standing, ripeness, mootness, separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, administrative presidency, judicial interpretation

A LIVE & NEW Aerial View for the first time in FOREVER. Sorry about that. Ken Katkin, Professor of Constitutional Law & Chief Custodian at Trash Flow Radio (WAIF-FM) joins me for the umpteenth time to discuss once again this Dark Timeline™. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

In our continued efforts to bring you reports, analyses, and diverse perspectives about the latest developments in Nepal following the Gen Z protests, in this episode, our Nepal correspondent Prayas Dulal speaks to advocate and constitutional law expert Professor Bipin Adhikari about ongoing political discussions in the country. We would like to inform you that we will continue bringing you more updates in the coming days. - यस हप्ता नेपालमा विकसित राजनीतिक घटनाक्रमका बारे हामीले क्रमिक रूपमा विविध सामाग्रीहरू प्रसारण गरिरहेका छौँ। राजनीतिक अन्योलका बिच वर्तमान परिस्थितिलाई सही निकास कसरी दिन सकिन्छ भन्ने विषयमा नेपालमा छलफलहरू जारी छन्। यही क्रममा आज हामी, संविधानविद् तथा अधिवक्ता प्राध्यापक बिपिन अधिकारीसँग हाम्रा नेपाल संवाददाता प्रयास दुलालले गर्नुभएको कुराकानी प्रस्तुत गर्दै छौँ। यससँगै हामी तपाईँहरूलाई जानकारी गराउन चाहन्छौँ कि नेपालका घटनाक्रमहरूलाई लिएर हामी क्रमिक रूपमा आउँदा दिनहरूमा थप सामाग्रीहरू प्रकाशित गर्ने प्रयास गर्ने छौँ।

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.

On Constitution Day, we bring you an interview with Marián Giba, head of the Department of Constitutional Law at Comenius University in Bratislava. Together, we look at the strengths and weaknesses of Slovakia's Constitution, its frequent amendments, the role of the Constitutional Court, and how politics and ideology shape constitutional debates. As the Slovak Constitution turns 33, we ask: how should we understand and protect this cornerstone of democracy today? And since September 1st also marks the first day of the new school year in Slovakia, our Slovak Sound Check language segment takes us into the classroom. We'll learn essential school vocabulary and discover how Slovak adjectives change depending on gender.

Discover how redistricting battles could shape the future of American democracy and the 2026 midterm elections. Professor Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, breaks down the Texas redistricting controversy, the mechanics of gerrymandering, and the legal and political standoff between Democrats and Republicans—revealing the high-stakes implications for voters, representation, and the balance of power. As the November 2026 mid-term elections inch closer and closer, the redistricting of states are at the forefront of controversy. President Trump created a political firestorm when he asked Governor Abbott & Texas Republicans to redraw voting maps that would add  five more congressional seats for the GOP. This new map targeted Democratic U.S. House members in the Austin, Dallas, and Houston metro areas and in South Texas. In protest, Texas Democrat state representatives fled Texas, hopped a plane to a few Blue states, and refused to vote on the proposed map.  On August 18th, the Democrats returned to the Capitol, after Governor Abbott took legal action against them, but not without making their mark and putting a spotlight on redistricting. In response to the political chaos in Texas, Governor of California, Gavin Newson, had his own strategy in mind, by proposing California congressional maps, which would add five Democratic seats, offsetting Texas gains. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins returning guest Professor Ned Foley,  Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law & Director of Election Law at The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law . Craig & Ned discuss the recent Texas redistricting controversy, gerrymanderying, the current standoff between Democrats and Republicans, legalities, and how all of this could impact the 2026 midterm elections.   Mentioned in this Episode: Common Ground Democracy

Discover how redistricting battles could shape the future of American democracy and the 2026 midterm elections. Professor Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, breaks down the Texas redistricting controversy, the mechanics of gerrymandering, and the legal and political standoff between Democrats and Republicans—revealing the high-stakes implications for voters, representation, and the balance of power. As the November 2026 mid-term elections inch closer and closer, the redistricting of states are at the forefront of controversy. President Trump created a political firestorm when he asked Governor Abbott & Texas Republicans to redraw voting maps that would add  five more congressional seats for the GOP. This new map targeted Democratic U.S. House members in the Austin, Dallas, and Houston metro areas and in South Texas. In protest, Texas Democrat state representatives fled Texas, hopped a plane to a few Blue states, and refused to vote on the proposed map.  On August 18th, the Democrats returned to the Capitol, after Governor Abbott took legal action against them, but not without making their mark and putting a spotlight on redistricting. In response to the political chaos in Texas, Governor of California, Gavin Newson, had his own strategy in mind, by proposing California congressional maps, which would add five Democratic seats, offsetting Texas gains. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins returning guest Professor Ned Foley,  Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law & Director of Election Law at The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law . Craig & Ned discuss the recent Texas redistricting controversy, gerrymanderying, the current standoff between Democrats and Republicans, legalities, and how all of this could impact the 2026 midterm elections.   Mentioned in this Episode: Common Ground Democracy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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!

In this podcast, Jeff talks about his trip to Italy and love of Italians — and notes the many similarities between Italians and Jews and one glaring difference. Italy was great but the constant content making of young people in Capri annoyed him. Only this dopey, lazy mentality could drive the success of Zorhan Mamdani, a Socialist Hamas supporter, in the NYC mayoral race.

Jon Hartley and Cass Sunstein discuss the current state as of 2025 of behavioral economics and ideas presented in Nudge (such as government nudge units), administrative law and regulation (cost-benefit analysis and regulatory budgets), Constitutional Law and separation of powers, political philosophy and liberalism. Recorded on August 12, 2025. ABOUT THE SERIES Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information about the podcast, or subscribe for the next episode, click here.

This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson interview Prof. Keith Hylton, William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor and Professor of Law at Boston University. Prof. Hylton shares insights from his academic career and the book Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas, which he co-authored. The discussion explores how Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith helped shape the legal framework for property rights and the free market in the U.S., and how these ideas are central to understanding our modern economy. Prof. Hylton explains the constitutional foundations of American intellectual property (IP) law, Thomas Jefferson's role in establishing the U.S. Patent Office, and how historic inventors like Thomas Edison exemplify American experimentation, innovation, and economic dynamism.  He also covers trade secrets, copyright law, and the tension between protecting inventors' individual patent rights and today's calls for free access to copyrighted online content. Hylton addresses global challenges, including cyber theft and piracy, and reflects on key legal cases that define international IP enforcement. Prof. Hylton also shares three major takeaways he hopes high school and undergraduate students will understand about the importance of intellectual property rights in sustaining American rule of law, innovation, and economic growth. He concludes with a reading from his book, Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas.

Gain expert legal insights and historical perspective as Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky joins Lawyer 2 Lawyer's 20th Anniversary episode. He examines the evolution of constitutional law, landmark SCOTUS rulings, civil rights cases, and the future of the U.S. Supreme Court — delivering analysis you won't want to miss. Way back in August of 2005 we started a little podcast called Coast to Coast with attorney Bob Ambrogi, led by our original Legal Talk Network founders, Lu Ann Reeb & Scott Hess. After issues with our original show name, we changed our name to Lawyer 2 Lawyer, and our podcasting adventure began!  In the middle of our podcasting adventure, Adam Camras, CEO of Lawgical and now Legal Talk Network, took the reins and Lawyer 2 Lawyer continued to soar. Fast forward to today, after a multitude of amazing guests, controversial legal topics & SCOTUS decisions, and a number of presidents, this month we celebrate our 20th Anniversary of Lawyer 2 Lawyer! To make this celebration even sweeter, we have invited our very first guest, Erwin Chemerinsky,  Dean of Berkeley Law, to join us. We will celebrate this milestone with Erwin, and you the audience, as we take a look at constitutional law then & now, landmark SCOTUS decisions over the years, and what the future holds. Mentioned in this Episode: Lawyer 2 Lawyer's  Inaugural Show with Erwin Chemerinsky & Michael Greco

In this compelling episode of The Andrew Parker Show, we dive deep into Israel's judicial reform debate and what it means for the country's democracy, rule of law, and political legitimacy.Andrew Parker welcomes retired Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman, a respected Times of Israel blogger, to unpack the ongoing clash between Israel's Supreme Court and the Knesset—and why the absence of a formal constitution fuels this crisis.Judge Lipman explains how Israel's Supreme Court can overrule the decisions of elected leaders based solely on its own “reasonableness” standard, why this differs dramatically from U.S. judicial norms, and how judicial reform could strengthen—not weaken—democracy in the one and only Jewish state.We also address international recognition of a Palestinian state in the wake of the October 7 atrocities, the dangers of bypassing bilateral negotiations, and the troubling implications for Israel's security and sovereignty.Key topics include:The history and current status of Israel's judicial reform movementWhy Israel never adopted a constitution—and the consequencesThe Supreme Court's self-appointed powers and “reasonableness” doctrinePotential solutions, including voter-approved basic laws and constitutional reformThe risks of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state after October 7Lessons from U.S. constitutional history and democratic principlesIf you care about Israel, democracy, judicial integrity, and Middle East politics, this episode will give you insights you won't hear anywhere else.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.

Gloria J. Browne-Marshall joins The Culture Show to talk about  her  new book, “A Protest History of the United States.” Gloria J. Browne-Marshall is an American civil rights attorney, author, playwright, essayist, and professor of Constitutional Law at CUNY's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

The executive branch has amassed tremendous power, challenging the constitutional balance among branches of government. This year alone, the president has ignored the laws passed by Congress to fire leaders of independent agencies without cause, freeze the spending of appropriated funds, and deploy the military as a domestic police force.Supporters of vast presidential power have a name for this: the unitary executive. It's the idea that the Constitution gives the president full personal control over the executive branch and wide latitude to act unilaterally. While legal scholars debate its scope, the theory in its most expansive form envisions a king-like president largely unconstrained by Congress or the courts. An embrace of this theory by the executive branch and Supreme Court could carry far-reaching consequences for American democracy. This conversation among experts examines the modern presidency, the origins of the unitary executive theory, and its implications for the future of checks and balances.Speakers:Samuel Breidbart, Counsel, Brennan Center Democracy ProgramJane Manners, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of LawJulian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolCristina Rodríguez, Deputy Dean and Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Wilfred U. Codrington III, Walter Floersheimer Professor of Constitutional Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of LawIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking, subscribing, and sharing with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a 5-star rating. Recorded on August 5, 2025, and produced in partnership with State Court Report.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing: https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing

At the urging of President Trump, the Texas legislature has launched a mid‑decade redistricting effort aimed at securing additional Republican seats in Congress. If successful, this effort could have far‑reaching implications for representation and governance—and spur other states to try the same. In this episode of Stanford Legal, two of Stanford Law School's—and the nation's—leading election law experts sit down to untangle the legal and political stakes of today's redistricting wars. In their wide‑ranging discussion, Professors Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily shed light on Texas's push to add five new Republican‑leaning seats, the Supreme Court's recent decision to re‑argue Louisiana v. Callais—a move that could reshape how the Voting Rights Act is applied—and the broader battles over race, representation, and the future of redistricting in America.Links:Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law pageConnect: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) Voting Rights and Gerrymandering (05:31)The Legal Landscape of Redistricting(15:01) The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering (25:31) The Evolving Role of the Judiciary (35:01) Future Implications for the Voting Rights Act 

At Black Hat USA 2025, Jennifer Granick—Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union—takes the keynote stage to make a bold case: we are long overdue for a new threat model, one that sees government surveillance not as a background risk, but as a primary threat to constitutional privacy.Granick draws from decades of experience defending hackers, fighting surveillance overreach, and engaging with the security community since DEFCON 3. She challenges the audience to reconsider outdated assumptions about how the Fourth Amendment is interpreted and applied. While technology has made it easier than ever for governments to collect data, the legal system hasn't kept pace—and in many cases, fails to recognize the sheer scope and sensitivity of personal information exposed through modern services.Her talk doesn't just raise alarm; it calls for action. Granick suggests that while legal reform is sluggish—stymied by a lack of political will and lobbying power—there's an urgent opportunity for the technical community to step up. From encryption to data minimization and anonymization, technologists have the tools to protect civil liberties even when the law falls short.The session promises to be a wake-up call for engineers, designers, policymakers, and privacy advocates. Granick wants attendees to leave not only more informed, but motivated to build systems that limit the unnecessary collection, retention, and exposure of personal data.Her keynote also surfaces a critical cultural shift: from the “Spot the Fed” days of DEFCON to a more nuanced understanding of government roles—welcoming collaboration where it serves the public good, but not at the expense of unchecked surveillance.This conversation reframes privacy as a design problem as much as a legal one—and one that requires collective effort to address. If the law can't fix it, the question becomes: will the technology community rise to the challenge?___________Guest:Jennifer Granick, Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel at American Civil Liberties Union | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifergranick/Hosts:Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine | Website: https://www.seanmartin.comMarco Ciappelli, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine | Website: https://www.marcociappelli.com___________Episode SponsorsThreatLocker: https://itspm.ag/threatlocker-r974BlackCloak: https://itspm.ag/itspbcwebAkamai: https://itspm.ag/akamailbwcDropzoneAI: https://itspm.ag/dropzoneai-641Stellar Cyber: https://itspm.ag/stellar-9dj3___________ResourcesKeynote: Threat Modeling and Constitutional Law: https://www.blackhat.com/us-25/briefings/schedule/index.html#keynote-threat-modeling-and-constitutional-law-48276Learn more and catch more stories from our Black Hat USA 2025 coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/bhusa25ITSPmagazine Webinar: What's Heating Up Before Black Hat 2025: Place Your Bet on the Top Trends Set to Shake Up this Year's Hacker Conference — An ITSPmagazine Thought Leadership Webinar | https://www.crowdcast.io/c/whats-heating-up-before-black-hat-2025-place-your-bet-on-the-top-trends-set-to-shake-up-this-years-hacker-conferenceCatch all of our event coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/technology-and-cybersecurity-conference-coverageWant to tell your Brand Story Briefing as part of our event coverage? Learn More

In this episode, Jeff returns after a few weeks off — and explains how one press conference in Chicago spiraled into a fabricated international incident with the Mexican government. Representing Ovidio Guzmán (El Chapo's son) became less about legal defense and more about being scapegoated by terrified politicians. In the end, free speech and the truth will always shine through. And the Mexican people?  Jeff notes that his respect for them has grown exponentially.Also covered: Hamas' newest PR strategy — letting Gaza starve while hoarding food in tunnels and filming propaganda videos of emaciated kids (whose fat parents are somehow not starving). The lies grow louder, the propaganda slicker, and yet Western liberal and far-right Jew haters just can't stop blaming Israel and taking it out on Jews. All while the next mayor of NYC will be a Hamas cheerleader who wants government-owned supermarkets and to arrest the Prime Minster of Israel. The downward spiral that began in 2008 nears completion.And finally, Jeff goes full collector mode: a breakdown of the baseball card National Show in Chicago. Too many rooms, too many scammers, but one glorious vintage Orioles cabinet card makes the entire hellscape worth it.

Join Chris Thrall on Bought the T-Shirt Podcast for an eye-opening conversation with Clive Edwards, a man who boldly faced down a daunting legal battle with his local council. Confronted with nine Enforcement Notices—each carrying the threat of unlimited fines and potential imprisonment—Clive stood his ground, defying conventional legal expectations. Socials instagram.com/chris.thrall youtube.com/christhrall facebook.com/christhrall christhrall.com Support the podcast at: patreon.com/christhrall (£2 per month plus perks) gofundme.com/christhrall paypal.me/teamthrall Our uncensored content: christhrall.locals.com Mailing list: christhrall.com/mailing-list/ Life Coaching: christhrall.com/coach/

Is civility slipping away at the Supreme Court, or is fierce debate just part of justice? Host Jack Russo talks with Professor Robert Acker about SCOTUS's big ruling against universal injunctions, limiting lower courts from blocking national policies. They break down the growing tension between Justices Barrett and Jackson, discussing how personal rivalries could influence the Court's future direction. The conversation also tackles the ongoing struggle between historical and modern interpretations of judicial power, concerns over forum shopping, and the role of social media in amplifying polarization. With talk of possible retirements and new nominations ahead, Jack and Bob explore what's next for the Court's balance and leadership. Don't miss this deep dive into the real challenges facing America's highest judges on The Valley Current®!   Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

In this episode, Jessica Levinson unpacks the major legal clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze on federal research funding that impacts vital medical studies. Harvard argues the cuts violate its First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedures Act, claiming they're being punished for not complying with federal demands related to antisemitism policies. The Trump administration insists it's merely a contract dispute, asserting their right to cut funding if Harvard doesn't align with federal priorities. Jessica highlights that the judge in the case seems skeptical of the Trump administration's stance and notes that the outcome could have sweeping effects on academic freedom and federal funding for universities across the country.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Legal Battle Over Federal Funding and Academic Freedom: The episode centers on the case of Harvard University vs. the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze in federal research funding to Harvard. Jessica Levinson explains that this legal clash is significant because it questions the extent of federal power over universities and touches on core issues of academic independence and freedom.Harvard's Arguments: First Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act: Harvard argues that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights—claiming it's being punished for not complying with federal demands that affect speech and institutional governance. Additionally, Harvard contends the Trump administration failed to follow the correct legal processes outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, making the funding cuts arbitrary and lacking proper justification.The Trump Administration's Position and Judicial Skepticism: The Trump administration frames the dispute as a simple breach-of-contract issue, saying grant contracts allow for cancellation when an institution's actions don't align with federal priorities. In court, however, the judge sounded skeptical of the administration's position, questioning whether the funding cut was improperly suppressing speech and whether there was enough evidence to justify such a drastic move.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

What does it mean when people start calling Donald Trump a king? And why are some political theorists — on both the right and left — exploring the possibility of leaving democracy behind? All this debate got co-host Tom Ginsburg thinking about an argument he's been turning over in his head for years: could constitutional monarchy actually be the best form of government?Is it possible that constitutional monarchy actuallystrengthensdemocracy? Do monarchs serve as symbols of national unity that modern republics are missing? And is America's obsession with political dynasties — the Obamas, the Bushes, the Kennedys — actually more monarchical than we'd like to admit?This wide-ranging conversation takes us from Thailand to the United Kingdom, from the founding ideals of the U.S. Constitution to the rise of populist leaders. Along the way, Tom and Claudia debate whether democracy is still holding strong — or if we're inching toward something more authoritarian.

Ep. 191 (Part 1 of 2) | Professor Mark Fischler, constitutional law expert and co-host of the Integral Justice Warrior podcast, helps us make sense of what's happening to our democracy, providing context—historical, legal, ethical—for the plethora of disturbing and destructive acts occurring on a daily basis in our political arena. The rule of law is under direct attack at this time, he explains, and an assault on democracy is essentially an assault on our most fundamental values—the principles this country was founded on: inclusivity, equality, and dignity for all. Mark clarifies President Trump's political actions in the context of developmental stages, unpacks Project 2025, and discusses the assault on higher education and critical thinking and what it portends. The trajectory of where we are headed, Mark points out, is regressing into values we have already transcended. We need our democratic foundation to move to deeper, post-democratic levels that are reflective of greater levels of interconnection and inclusivity—not the opposite, he says. What will it take to change the regressive trajectory? Courage! And involvement. Thank you, Mark, for bringing a rare depth and much-needed clarity to the subject of the evolving democratic crisis occurring in our nation today and its implications for our future. Recorded June 12, 2025.“The rule of law is a hard-earned process… and it's under direct attack at this time in our country.”Topics & Time Stamps – Part 1Introducing constitutional law expert, professor of Ethics, Constitutional Law, and Criminal Procedure, and co-host of the Integral Justice Warrior podcast, Mark Fischler (00:39)Trump, tribalism, and the zero-sum game: there are winners & losers; the losers deserve to lose (01:31)The rule of law is under direct attack in the U.S. at this time (11:34)Dehumanization and Trump's pre-conventional ethic of retribution (14:41)Our nation is built on ethics of higher purpose; our founding fathers specifically banned gifts to the President in the Constitution (17:30)Where is Congress in all of this? (21:13)Treason and bribery are the two legal grounds for impeachment (21:55)What is Project 2025, and the over-rulings of judicial rulings by the executive (25:33)The Heritage Foundation, responsible for developing the central ideas of Project 2025 (29:41)Project 2025's pre-conventional position on abortion and family (32:49)Why does democracy matter? (36:22)What we are experiencing is a direct attack on the principles of inclusivity (37:53)How does slashing Medicare and Medicaid square with Christian values? (40:21)The trajectory of where we are headed: regressing into values we have already transcended (43:14)The left has made it easy for the far right (43:48)The assault on higher education and critical thinking (44:17)Resources & References – Part 1The Integral Justice Warrior series, co-hosted by Mark Fischler and Corey deVos (Integral Life website)J. Michael Luttig,

Even though it came in second place in the 2025 German federal election, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) was subsequently classified as an extremist party by the Office for the …

With July upon us and bad decision season (mercifully) over, Leah, Kate and Melissa take a step back to recap this year's SCOTUS term. They highlight some of the overarching themes, break down the biggest opinions, and look back at the moments they'll remember forever–whether they want to or not. Hosts' favorite things:Melissa: KBJ's footnote 12 in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida; Seven Chaotic Months in the Life of a New Federal Judge, Emily Bazelon and Mattathias Schwartz (NYT); This Is the Real Impact of the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood Decision, Linda Greenhouse (NYT); When Rational Basis Review Bit (HLR)Leah: A New Kind of Judicial Supremacy, Steve Vladeck (One First); With the Big, Beautiful Bill, You Can Now Sponsor a Billionaire of Your Choosing, Alexandra Petri (Atlantic); Samuel Alito Takes Pride in Gay-Bashing, Elie Mystal (The Nation); A Court Without the Range, Sherrilyn Ifill (Sherrilyn's Newsletter); ‘A Culture of Disdain': The Supreme Court's Actions Speak Louder Than Its Words, Kate Shaw (NYT); Andor (Disney+); Virgin, Lorde; Trump FragrancesKate: Trump's Big Win in His Escalating War on the Press, Bob Bauer (Executive Functions); USAID study (The Lancet); Is the Supreme Court the Best Way to Get Justice? Alexis Coe (NYT); Unbearable: Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America, Irin Carmon; We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution, Jill Lepore Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

In a groundbreaking episode of The Animal Law Podcast, we explored radical new concepts that could fundamentally transform how constitutional law treats animals. Host Mariann Sullivan welcomed Cambridge University’s Raffael Fasel and Queen Mary University’s John Adenitire to discuss their book “Animals and the Constitution: Towards Sentience-Based Constitutionalism” – a work that challenges centuries of legal tradition by proposing constitutional frameworks…

In a groundbreaking episode of The Animal Law Podcast, we explored radical new concepts that could fundamentally transform how constitutional law treats animals. Host Mariann Sullivan welcomed Cambridge University’s Raffael Fasel and Queen Mary University’s John Adenitire to discuss their book “Animals and the Constitution: Towards Sentience-Based Constitutionalism” – a work that challenges centuries of legal tradition by proposing constitutional frameworks…

The US enters a violent part of the world once again, as Iran's nuclear facilities are bombed.  The President orders this without consulting Congress; indeed without asking for, much less receiving a declaration of war.  Does the Constitution require this?  What has past practice been?  What was true at the founding?  Has it changed over the centuries?  Many twists and turns to the reasoning emerge as we explore this largely indefinite area of Constitutional Law.  Meanwhile, Akhil gives a speech on the Revolution and the Constitution which sounds surprisingly relevant at this time.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from 

This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check o... This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Live from Capital Turnaround in Washington, D.C., Leah, Kate, and Melissa wade right into the swamp, breaking down the (very weird, very disturbing) sexual harassment claims against Texas's ex-solicitor general, Judd Stone and holding their noses to read Coach Brett Kavanaugh's opinion on the National Environmental Policy Act. Then, the hosts welcome special guests Ambassador Norm Eisen and Emily Amick, author of the Substack, Emily in Your Phone, to talk about the avalanche of litigation against the Trump administration and reproductive rights (and wrongs), respectively.Hosts' favorite things:Leah: Taylor Swift's letter about buying back her art; Why Is This Supreme Court Handing Trump More and More Power?, Kate Shaw (NYT); Living by the Ipse Dixit, Steve Vladeck (One First); The New Dark Age, Adam Serwer (The Atlantic); Elon Musk's Legacy Is Disease, Starvation and Death, Michelle Goldberg (NYT)Kate: Beware: We Are Entering a New Phase of the Trump Era, M. Gessen (NYT), How YOU Helped Knock Musk Out of DC–& of Politics, Norm Eisen (Substack); On the Campaign Trail, Elon Musk Juggled Drugs and Family Drama, Kirsten Grind and Meghan Twohey (NYT); Cowboy CarterMelissa: Her incredible shoes from the show; seeing Cowboy Carter; the newest season of Just Like That; Original Sin by Jake Tapper and Alex ThompsonEmily: Nine Perfect Strangers (Hulu); Everyone Is Lying to You by Jo Piazza Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Melissa, Leah, and Kate kick the show off with a look at the Court's 4-4 deadlock on Oklahoma's religious charter school case. Then, it's a romp through the shadow docket, Judge Jim Ho's sweaty pleas for attention, Kristi Noem's humiliating Senate hearing, and selections from Trump's fascism grab bag. Leah also speaks with Professor Noah Rosenblum of NYU School of Law about the 6-3 decision from the Court allowing the president to fire federal commissioners without cause.Hosts' favorite things:Kate: Read Your Way Through New York City (NYT); Girl on Girl How: Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves, Sophie Gilbert; Cahokia Jazz, Francis SpuffordLeah: Matt Kacsmaryk Shouldn't Be a Judge, Chris Geidner (Law Dork); Let Them Stare, Julie Murphy and Jonathan Van Ness; Kissing Girls on Shabbat, Sara Glass; The Duke of Shadows, Meredith DuranMelissa: The Four Seasons (Netflix); Matriarch, Tina Knowles Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

May is supposed to be the calm before June's opinion storm in SCOTUS-land, but not in Trump's America. Melissa, Kate, and Leah kick off the show with the latest news, including Stephen Miller's habeas suspension fantasies and the president's blatant disregard of the emoluments clause when it comes to free jumbo jets. Then, the hosts are joined by professor Elora Mukherjee of Columbia Law School to break down last week's oral arguments in the Court's blockbuster birthright citizenship case. Hosts' favorite things:Kate: Second Life: Having a Child in the Digital Age, Amanda Hess; Harvard Paid $27 for a Copy of Magna Carta. Surprise! It's an Original, Stephen Castle (NYT)Leah: My Friends, Fredrik Backman; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on All Rise News; Melissa: Weight Watchers Got One Thing Very Right, Jennifer Rubin (NYT); This Is Big: How the Founder of Weight Watchers Changed the World -- And Me, Marisa Meltzer; Forever (Netflix) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Donald Trump insists he has the right to render people to a foreign prison even though the courts say otherwise, and Democrats dig in for a critical fight. From El Salvador, Senator Chris Van Hollen briefs Dan on his effort to get answers about Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Then, Jon and Dan look at the latest targets of Trump's retribution tour, most notably Harvard, his threats to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, and Elon Musk's ultra-creepy project to populate Earth with a "legion" of his own offspring. Then, Tommy sits down with Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, about how he's trying to push back on Trump's defiance of the courts. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.