Podcasts about Constitutional law

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

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.

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

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

This podcast explores the legal concept of standing, which dictates who is eligible to bring a lawsuit before a court. They highlight that standing typically requires a concrete, particularized injury that is traceable to the defendant's actions and redressable by a court, as emphasized in U.S. federal law. However, the articles also discuss challenges and criticisms of this doctrine, including concerns about limiting access to justice for public interest issues, inconsistent applications in various legal contexts like reproductive rights or anti-corruption efforts, and the debate around third-party or public interest standing in different jurisdictions. Potential solutions are also considered, such as using institutional plaintiffs or expanding standing through legislative action.The fundamental purpose of the standing doctrine is to limit federal courts to adjudicating "cases or controversies" involving actual injuries. It upholds the separation of powers by preventing courts from issuing advisory opinions or overstepping into political or hypothetical grievances."Injury-in-fact" requires a plaintiff to show they have suffered a concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent. "Concrete" means the injury is real, even if intangible (like reputational harm), while "particularized" means it affects the plaintiff individually, not merely as part of the general public.The "causation" element ensures the alleged injury is directly attributable to the defendant's conduct, and not to actions by independent third parties not involved in the case. This establishes a clear and logical link, preventing speculative claims where the defendant's role in the harm is unclear."Redressability" means it must be likely that a favorable court decision will remedy the plaintiff's injury. It does not require that the court's judgment completely eliminate the harm; incremental redress is sufficient to satisfy this requirement.Prudential standing requirements are judicially created limits on federal court jurisdiction, such as prohibitions on third-party standing or generalized grievances. Unlike the constitutional elements, Congress can modify or override these prudential doctrines through legislation.The general rule is that federal taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government expenditures based solely on their taxpayer status because the injury is too speculative and widely shared. A narrow exception exists for challenges under the Establishment Clause to specific congressional taxing and spending measures.Associational standing allows an organization to sue on behalf of its members if its members would individually have standing, the interests are relevant to the organization's purpose, and the claim or relief does not require individual member participation. This enables collective representation for shared harms within a group.TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez clarified that for intangible harms to be "concrete," they must have a "close historical or common-law analogue." This limits Congress's ability to define new intangible harms for standing purposes, leading to continued ambiguity and circuit splits on how to apply this historical analogy test.State standing is often easier to establish due to the "special solicitude" afforded to states as sovereigns and their broad array of proprietary and quasi-sovereign interests. States can sue parens patriae to protect the health and well-being of their residents, unlike private citizens who must show a particularized injury.Qui tam actions allow private individuals (relators) to sue on behalf of the federal government for injuries suffered by the government, often in exchange for a financial reward. This expands standing by effectively assigning the government's injury-in-fact to the relator, rooted in a long historical practice.

The provided sources discuss the legal doctrine of preemption, particularly focusing on federal preemption of state laws in the United States. They explain that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes federal law as paramount when conflicts arise. The texts outline two main types of preemption: express preemption, where federal law explicitly states its intent to supersede state law, and implied preemption, which occurs when federal intent to preempt is not explicit. Implied preemption is further divided into field preemption, where federal regulation is so pervasive it leaves no room for state law, and conflict preemption, where state law either makes compliance with federal law impossible or obstructs federal objectives. The sources also highlight the ongoing debate between state and federal powers, with different stakeholders advocating for broader or narrower applications of preemption depending on their interests.The primary function of the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2, is to establish federal law as the "supreme Law of the Land." It ensures that validly enacted federal laws override conflicting state laws and constitutions, providing legal hierarchy and national uniformity.Federal preemption is the doctrine that invalidates conflicting state laws when Congress exercises its legislative power to displace or override state authority. Its core constitutional basis is the Supremacy Clause, which mandates that federal law prevails over inconsistent state enactments.Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states its intent to override state law, often through a specific clause. Implied preemption, in contrast, arises when courts infer Congress's intent to preempt state law from the federal law's structure, purpose, or comprehensiveness, even without explicit language.Field preemption occurs when federal regulation is so comprehensive or the federal interest is so dominant that courts conclude Congress intended to occupy an entire regulatory field. A common characteristic courts look for is a "pervasive scheme of federal regulation" that leaves no room for state supplementation, as seen in areas like alien registration.Conflict preemption applies in two main situations: first, when compliance with both federal and state law is physically impossible (impossibility preemption); and second, when state law "stands as an obstacle" to the accomplishment of federal objectives (obstacle preemption).The "presumption against preemption" instructs that federal law should not be interpreted as superseding states' historic police powers (e.g., public health, safety) unless Congress's intent to preempt is "clear and manifest." It reflects the constitutional principle of federalism, preserving a meaningful role for state autonomy.State common law, particularly tort law, can be affected by obstacle preemption. For instance, in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., a state tort law requiring airbags was preempted because it stood as an obstacle to a federal regulation that gave manufacturers a range of options, including not installing airbags, reflecting a federal objective of flexibility.The Supremacy Clause directly binds state courts by requiring judges in every state to apply federal law, even if it contradicts state law or state precedent. This means state judges cannot refuse to hear federal claims or decline to enforce federal statutes due to local disagreement.Yes, federal agency regulations issued under valid statutory authority have the same preemptive force as federal statutes if properly promulgated. Similarly, executive agreements, when entered into pursuant to constitutional authority (especially regarding foreign affairs), can also preempt conflicting state laws.A "savings clause" in a federal statute is a provision that explicitly limits its preemptive effect, stating that certain categories of state law are not preempted. Its general purpose is to preserve state author

The sources discuss the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. They explain that a search occurs when a reasonable expectation of privacy is violated, and a seizure involves meaningful interference with a person's possessory interests or freedom of movement. While a warrant based on probable cause is generally required, numerous exceptions to the warrant rule exist, such as exigent circumstances, consent, and searches incident to arrest. The exclusionary rule serves as the primary remedy for violations, rendering illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in court, though it too has several exceptions. The sources also highlight the evolving interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in light of advancing technology.Olmstead v. United States narrowly defined a search based on physical trespass, meaning wiretapping without physical intrusion was not a search. Katz v. United States broadened this, holding that a search occurs when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy," shifting the focus from places to people.Justice Harlan's two-prong test states that a search occurs if (1) the individual exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) society recognizes that expectation as objectively reasonable. Both prongs must be met for Fourth Amendment protections to apply.According to United States v. Mendenhall, a seizure of a person occurs when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, an individual's freedom of movement is restrained, and a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave due to police conduct.A police officer may conduct a "Terry stop" and frisk when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and that the individual is armed and dangerous. This limited pat-down is specifically for weapons to ensure officer safety.For a valid search warrant, it must be (1) based on probable cause, (2) supported by an oath or affirmation, and (3) particularly describe the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized.Illinois v. Gates replaced the rigid two-pronged test from previous cases with a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach for determining probable cause. This allows judges to consider all relevant factors, including the reliability of an informant's tip, in a more flexible manner.The "automobile exception" allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The rationale is based on the vehicle's inherent mobility, which makes obtaining a warrant impractical, and a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct by making evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment generally inadmissible in criminal proceedings. Mapp v. Ohio extended this rule to the states.Two exceptions to the exclusionary rule are:Good Faith Exception: Evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant, later found to be defective, may still be admitted if the officers acted in good faith.Inevitable Discovery: Evidence will not be excluded if the prosecution can demonstrate it would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, regardless of the initial unlawful search.Riley v. California held that police generally need a warrant to search the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest, recognizing the vast amount of personal data on modern devices. Carpenter v. United States ruled that accessing historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, reining in the third-party doctrine for comprehensive digital location data.

These sources collectively explore the multifaceted nature of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects fundamental freedoms including speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. They differentiate between fully protected, less protected, and unprotected categories of speech, with particular emphasis on incitement to imminent lawless action as defined by Brandenburg v. Ohio and the protection extended to offensive public discourse in Snyder v. Phelps. The texts also examine the historical evolution and current challenges facing press freedom in the digital age, suggesting a potential need to distinguish the press clause from the speech clause for the sake of professional journalism's viability. Finally, they highlight the often-overlooked right to petition, detailing its historical significance as a direct means of government redress for citizens, including marginalized groups, and its diminished role today compared to its robust past.The five distinct freedoms protected by the First Amendment are speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. These rights form the foundation of American democratic society by limiting government interference in personal expression and political engagement.Protected speech includes political discourse and symbolic expression, safeguarding unpopular or dissenting views, and is generally immune from government censorship. Unprotected speech, however, falls into narrow categories like true threats or obscenity, where the speech directly causes substantial, socially unacceptable harm and can be punished.Clarence Brandenburg was convicted for advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute. This statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence as a means of political reform, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.The three elements of the "imminent lawless action" test are: the speech must be directed to inciting lawless action, the lawless action must be imminent, and the speech must be likely to incite or produce such action. All three must be met for speech to lose its First Amendment protection.Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced the "bad tendency" test (from Whitney v. California) and effectively overturned the "abstract advocacy" standard (from Dennis v. United States). It shifted the focus to speech that directly incites immediate and likely unlawful action, protecting mere advocacy of violence.Justice Douglas's "absolutist" position argued that the phrase "no law" in the First Amendment should be interpreted very literally, meaning nearly all speech should be immune from prosecution regardless of governmental interests. He believed the "clear and present danger" test had been misused to suppress legitimate First Amendment claims.A "content-based" regulation restricts speech based on its message or subject matter and is subject to strict scrutiny. A "content-neutral" regulation, conversely, regulates the time, place, or manner of speech, regardless of its content, and is subject to intermediate scrutiny.Prior restraint is an administrative system that prevents speech from occurring before it is published or expressed. It is highly disfavored because the Supreme Court views it as the "most serious and least tolerable infringement" of First Amendment rights, carrying a heavy burden for the government to justify.Historically, the right to petition allowed individuals to formally file grievances with Congress for review and response, often leading to investigation or hearings. Today, online petitions often lack this formal process; they are frequently political theater and typically do not receive official congressional review or response.An example of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment is burning the American flag, as ruled in Texas v. Johnson. This act, though offensive to many, was recognized as a constitutionally protected form of conveying a political message.

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.

Judicial scrutiny, vital for U.S. constitutional law, assesses if laws comply with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. It has three levels: Rational Basis Review (lenient, for non-fundamental rights), Intermediate Scrutiny (mid-tier, for quasi-suspect classifications like gender), and Strict Scrutiny (highest, for fundamental rights or suspect classifications like race, often "fatal in fact").The Equal Protection Clause, requiring similar treatment for similarly situated people, has evolved, notably expanding to corporations. However, "pluralism anxiety" has led to limitations on traditional, group-based civil rights by restricting heightened scrutiny classifications, foreclosing disparate impact claims without discriminatory intent, and curbing congressional enforcement powers under Section 5.Despite these limitations, the Court has shifted to "liberty-based dignity claims," using due process liberty analysis to protect subordinated groups, as seen in cases like Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy laws) and Roe v. Wade (abortion rights). This approach often frames rights universally, circumventing traditional scrutiny bars and Section 5 limitations.Critics argue the scrutiny framework has ambiguous boundaries, allows too much judicial discretion, is overly deferential in rational basis, and struggles with modern issues and intersectional discrimination.U.S. v. Skrmetti, addressing gender-affirming care for minors, is a pivotal case that will define the application of the Equal Protection Clause to transgender issues. Arguments revolve around whether the law discriminates on sex, age, or transgender status, and the state's justification for the ban. The outcome, expected in June 2025, will significantly impact equal protection jurisprudence.In conclusion, the scrutiny framework, while foundational, faces challenges in adapting to societal changes. The shift to liberty-based dignity claims offers a new avenue for protecting rights, but cases like Skrmetti highlight ongoing debates and the framework's future.

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,

SummaryThis lecture discussion explores the evolution of the Commerce Clause, located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes. Initially intended to prevent economic fragmentation among the states under the Articles of Confederation, the clause has since become a cornerstone of federal legislative authority. The lecture traces the doctrine's development from early cases like Gibbons v. Ogden, which established a broad interpretation of interstate commerce, through periods of judicial contraction during the Lochner era, and into its expansive use during the New Deal era with cases like Wickard v. Filburn. It also covers the modern Court's retrenchment in United States v. Lopez and Morrison, reaffirming limits on federal power. The lecture concludes with analysis of Gonzales v. Raich, the Affordable Care Act case (NFIB v. Sebelius), and the interplay between the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, providing students with a framework to understand the clause's reach and limitations in contemporary constitutional law.Key TakeawaysCommerce Clause Authority: Congress has the power to regulate channels, instrumentalities, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce.Early Interpretations: Gibbons v. Ogden broadly defined “commerce” and Congress's authority over it.Judicial Contraction: Cases like E.C. Knight and Hammer v. Dagenhart restricted commerce power by excluding manufacturing and production.New Deal Expansion: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Filburn upheld federal regulation of intrastate activities with substantial economic effects.Civil Rights and Commerce: Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach v. McClung affirmed Congress's authority to address racial discrimination through commerce power.Modern Limits: Lopez and Morrison reasserted that non-economic activities and areas of traditional state concern fall outside commerce power.Necessary and Proper Clause: Raich shows Congress may regulate intrastate activity if essential to a broader regulatory scheme.Tenth Amendment Constraints: Federal power under the Commerce Clause cannot commandeer state governments (New York v. United States, Printz).Affordable Care Act: In NFIB v. Sebelius, the individual mandate exceeded commerce power but was upheld under the taxing power.Doctrinal Framework: The three-category test for Commerce Clause regulation guides constitutional analysis post-Lopez.

This conversation delves into the concept of judicial review, a foundational principle of American law that allows courts to determine the constitutionality of laws. It explores the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review, and discusses its historical context, evolution, and the ongoing debates surrounding its implications. The conversation also examines how judicial review is applied in tribal governments and considers the future of this critical legal principle in a rapidly changing world.TakeawaysJudicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but is inferred from its structure.Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review in American law.The judiciary serves as a check on legislative and executive powers.Judicial review has historical roots in both British and American legal traditions.Critics of judicial review have raised concerns about judicial overreach and the power of unelected judges.The Supreme Court has historically been cautious in exercising judicial review, especially against federal laws.Judicial review extends to executive actions, not just legislative ones.Tribal governments also implement their own versions of judicial review and separation of powers.Judicial independence is crucial for maintaining public trust in the legal system.The future of judicial review will be shaped by evolving societal norms and legal challenges.judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, American law, constitutional law, separation of powers, Supreme Court, legal history, tribal governance, judicial independence, legal principles

It's been another extraordinary week in the ongoing saga of Donald Trump's court battles—one that has seen major developments on multiple legal fronts as the former president continues to dominate headlines and court dockets. I want to take you right into the action of the past few days and give you a sense of just how frenetic, and consequential, these court proceedings have become.Just days ago, the Supreme Court handed a significant victory to Donald Trump's administration by allowing his executive order for sweeping reductions in the federal workforce to move forward for now. This order, issued back in February, directed government agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—so-called “reductions in force”—across the federal bureaucracy. Labor unions, local governments, and advocacy groups were quick to challenge it, concerned about the potential dismantling of large swaths of government operations. Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco initially blocked Trump's plan, but the justices, in a brief opinion, sided with the administration, at least temporarily. The order remains in effect pending appeals, and the Supreme Court's decision, with only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, means federal agencies are once again on notice to prepare for significant changes. Justice Jackson, in her 15-page dissent, warned of “irreparable harm” to the structure of the federal government if Trump's plan is executed before the courts fully resolve the legal questions.Meanwhile, another Trump executive action faced a major legal setback. In New Hampshire, a federal court blocked Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States. Civil rights organizations including the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund challenged Trump's executive order just days after a Supreme Court ruling that had opened the door for partial enforcement of the controversial policy. On July 10, the federal judge not only issued a preliminary injunction halting the order but also certified a nationwide class to ensure all affected children are protected. According to Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, this ruling reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for all babies born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' status.And that's not all. The New York criminal case against Donald Trump remains active on the court calendars, with a slew of filings, decisions, and orders continuing through this year. Sentencing audio from early January made headlines and provided a rare public window into proceedings that are as closely watched as they are contentious.With each ruling, appeal, and legal maneuver, the stakes grow higher—not just for Donald Trump, but for the nation's legal and political landscape. Whether it's the fate of thousands of federal workers, the citizenship status of newborns, or the outcome of high-profile criminal trials, Trump's time in the courtroom is shaping American life in real time.Thanks for tuning in, and make sure you come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In this episode of Right to Life Radio, John Gerardi and Jonathan Keller dive headfirst into the legal chaos surrounding the OBBB, judicial overreach, and the roller coaster of legislative madness. They break down the temporary restraining order against defunding Planned Parenthood and the rogue judge who allowed it.

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

Dr Tom Hickey, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law in DCU, looks ahead to the High Court case, brought by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly, examining the Government's appointment of 'Super Junior' ministers.

On the third anniversary of the Dobbs decision, John and Jonathan dive deep into how the legal landscape has changed—and hasn't—since Roe v. Wade was overturned. They explore the constitutional arguments behind Dobbs, the rise in abortions since 2022, and how telemedicine abortion access has skyrocketed under President Biden. The duo also examines the financial state of Planned Parenthood and whether proposed defunding efforts might cripple the organization or just push it further into virtual abortion services.

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 U.S. Supreme Court has released multiple options today. The first opinion is a case about nationwide injunctions that some are calling the birthright citizenship case. Greg and Holly break down this ruling and others that impact religious freedom for parents and more. Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor for SCOTUSblog speaks to the significance of multiple rulings and what this could mean for the big picture of some of these cases including birthright citizenship. Bill Duncan, Constitutional Law and Religious Freedom Fellow with Sutherland Institute, joins the show to discuss the ruling which allows parents to opt children out of classes with LGBTQ storybooks.

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 

In this compelling episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey explores one of the most contentious intersections of constitutional law and public policy with Professor Hank Chambers from the University of Richmond Law School. Together, they unpack the complex doctrine of qualified immunity and its relationship to police discretion—topics that have become central to national debates about policing, accountability, and civil rights.Professor Chambers breaks down what qualified immunity actually means, explaining how it allows law enforcement officers to avoid liability in certain situations, even when constitutional violations may have occurred. Professor Chambers offers a nuanced perspective on why some view qualified immunity as necessary protection for officers doing difficult work, while others see it as a barrier to accountability.

In this podcast Jeff discusses a moment he never dreamed would occur: Iran's nuclear facilities were destroyed by America and Iran is finally punished for its global terror. Every President from Carter through Biden looked the other way or appeased Iran's terrorism — Trump did not. Jeff eats some crow but points out the MAGA leading voices who sided with the Muslim terror state that tried to kill our President. And an update on Jeff's federal fraud sentencing before his fraternity brother. It was a hoot, it was surreal and it brought back a lot of memories.

In this thought-provoking episode of The Andrew Parker Show, Andrew sits down with Justice Barry Anderson, a recently retired Minnesota Supreme Court justice with over 20 years of service on the bench. Justice Anderson, a distinguished legal mind, reflects on the rule of law, its evolution, and the role it plays in shaping American society.They dive deep into the American legal tradition, contrasting it with ancient legal systems, and explore how the rule of law in the U.S. is rooted in a bottom-up approach rather than top-down governance. Justice Anderson shares insights from his time on the Minnesota Supreme Court, offering listeners a rare glimpse behind the scenes of the highest court in the state.From discussions on the First Amendment and religious liberty to the intersection of executive and judicial powers, this episode is packed with valuable lessons on constitutional principles and their real-world implications. Tune in as Andrew and Justice Anderson discuss the importance of historical context in understanding today's legal battles, including issues surrounding immigration, government overreach, and the evolving role of the administrative state.This conversation is a must-listen for those passionate about understanding the rule of law, its challenges, and its significance in our democracy.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.

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

This week Jeff opens with the long-awaited Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, a dazzling military operation years in the making. But instead of support for Israel, Jeff is stunned by the response: hatred not only from the far left but now pouring out of MAGA's biggest names. Yes, the Trump-right has joined Hamas and the progressive left in their obsessive Jew hatred, and Jeff is seething.Trump, meanwhile, couldn't resist taking credit for the Israeli success after the fact, even though he reportedly tried to block the strike for months. And if he actually helped, why didn't he greenlight American B-52s to finish the job on the underground nuke sites? Why is he trying to make a huge deal when the world's biggest sponsor of terror is on its knees?Also this week: a tale of how a young lawyer buying his first suits comes full circle 30 years later, this time as a man paying cash with 44 tailored suits under his belt. Plus, Jeff faces a federal judge he went to college with and admits, despite all of his own accomplishments, the judge is the better man.As always, Jeff pulls no punches. Not for MAGA. Not for Trump. Not for the far left. And certainly not for anyone siding with the world's worst terror regime.

In the pantheon of intellectual giants of modernconservatism, standing first among equals is the late professor Harry Jaffa. Jaffa, who influenced generations of students from his academic perch at Claremont Graduate University, might have been the 20th century's greatest scholar on the thought of Abraham Lincoln. Jaffa, who along with JWI Founder & Co-Director Hadley Arkes was a student of the great Leo Strauss, produced two seminal books on Lincoln. First, in 1958, he gave us Crisis of the House Divided, a close analysis of the Lincoln Douglas debates, andthen forty two years later, A New Birth of Freedom, which was devoted to the larger project of the causes of the Civil War, the Election of 1860, and the secession thereafter. A former student of Jaffa, and close confidant, Edward Erler, has now come forth with a new book Prophetic Statesmanshipfrom Encounter Books that Jaffa himself entrusted Erler to write as a follow-on to A New Birth of Freedom after Jaffa died about a decade ago. We are deeply pleased then to be joined by Prof. Erler for a wide ranging discussion of this important new work on Lincoln, with a relevance to theissues at the heart of our present way of life that is quite striking. Erler is Professor of Political Science emeritus fromCalifornia State University, San Bernardino, where he taught Political Philosophy and Constitutional Law, and served as Department Chairman from 1984-1991. He is the Author of numerous books and law reviews and professionaljournals, among the most recent, are “From Subjects to Citizens: the Social Contract Origins of American Citizenship”; “Marbury v. Madison and the Progressive Transformation of Judicial Power”;. He received a B.A. in Political Science from San Jose State University, on a grant from the G.I. Bill for services rendered, a M.A. and Ph.D. from the Claremont Graduate School. He has been a fellow at the National Humanities Center and served as Director of theBicentennial for the National Endowment for the Humanities.Purchase Prophetic StatesmanRead more of Prof. Erlier at The American Mind

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

On the sixty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben, Shane, and Matthew discuss the Mayflower Compact, and its implications for American political life as one of the nation's earliest constitutional compacts. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

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

Show Notes: Dan Tabak, a lawyer and treasurer of Harvard Hillel, spent three years at Columbia Law School, he then worked as a litigator at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, but took a year off to clerk for a federal judge in Brooklyn. He went back to work at Simpson Thacher before moving on to his current firm, Cohen & Gresser which operates primarily in New York City but has offices in London, Paris, Dubai, and Washington, D.C. He currently lives in Scarsdale, New York with his wife and two kids. On the Board of Harvard Hillel Dan joined the board of Harvard Hillel during the pandemic, which allowed him to participate more actively. He explains why he joined the board and supporting the Jewish community was an important part of his decision. In response to the fact that Harvard has been in the news in connection with  anti-semitism, Dan states that the board has a diverse board with diverse viewpoints. He also mentions a 311 page study on anti-semitism at Harvard and notes that there are problems at Harvard that were different from what his class perceived, and that students today interact differently than when Dan was a student, specifically the inability to disagree with civility and respect for diversity of opinions.  The Decline of Jewish Students at HarvardDan discusses the decline in Jewish students at Harvard and similar institutions, noting that he believes it has not emerged from a top-down decision, but traces back to the Immigration Act of 1965. He notes that there was a high likelihood of having a Jewish roommate or blockmate in the class of 1992 and a lower chance now, which has led to fewer people understanding Jews and Jewish life at these institutions. He attributes the decline to the emphasis on more diversity on identities within admissions and how students feel a responsibility to represent their specific background as well as the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened doors to different communities, particularly immigrant families, who tend to value education highly and are now more represented at Harvard.  A Career in Law and Improving the Public School Systems Dan talks about his career at Simpson Thacher, one of the world's largest firms. His senior thesis in college involved a school funding decision in New Jersey. From his first week as a summer associate at Simpson Thacher to his departure years later, he worked with a group bringing a similar case in New York, Campaign For Fiscal Equity against the state of New York. The case involved school kids in New York City suing the state for a sound basic education under the New York State Constitution. The trial went nine months, and the students won the trial.  He summarizes the process from determining there is a right to finding the remedy.  The remedy involved resources and money, and the case went through another set of hearings to determine the appropriate resolution. Dan also discusses what the research revealed about class sizes, funding, and how the family situation impacts the education of a student.  A Focus on Financial Service CompaniesThe conversation turns to Dan's legal work, focusing on commercial litigation, with a focus on financial services companies, and bankruptcy and bankruptcy-related litigation. He talks about his involvement in a case involving Terry Bollea, also known as Hulk Hogan, in the bankruptcy of Gawker and Gawker's founder. He also touches on how this case helped lead to a change in how the public views the publication of sex tapes. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the legal landscape and the impact of cases like this on the legal landscape. Skills and Superpowers in LawDan believes that his strengths in law are the strategizing of how to get from here to there, listening to the client, and having a goal in mind. He also mentions being a good writer, which helps convey his thoughts. He initially was less strong at oral arguments but has since improved his skills and persuaded judges to change course and decide for his clients. One example of a successful legal strategy involves listening to clients and helping them figure out what they really want. For example, he has worked with pro bono clients who are more interested in justice than achieving a result. They often get a settlement offer and he explains the consequences if they don't take it. He explains that the lawyer must work through the emotional aspects and consider the implications of suing them and going to court. With corporate clients, Dan emphasizes the importance of listening to clients' goals and working relationships with the other party. A settlement can be a win-win situation for everyone involved, as long as they can continue doing business together. This is a different function of listening to what the client is trying to get out of the case. The Limitations of  Legal EducationDan believes that a course he took from Roger Fisher with the Harvard Negotiation project was more helpful in negotiation and negotiation strategy than anything he learned in law school. He also mentions that law school was more about hearing the cases and understanding the law, rather than emotional intelligence and negotiating strategies. He also mentions that law schools did not teach how to manage junior attorneys and paralegals, which he believes is essential for success in law firms. He talks about the many small inflection points in a lawyer's career, such as meeting the right people and introducing them to potential clients that change or shape direction and offer opportunities. Influential Harvard Professors and CoursesDan mentions the Negotiation course and a Constitutional Law class with H.W. Perry, where he learned how to read legal cases and understand constitutional law. Dan shares a memorable experience while he was taking the Constitutional Law course where he argued a case in front of classmates, including "Chief Justice" Ketanji Brown Jackson, and also mentions learning in an Intro to Psychology course about the concept of idiosyncrasy credits.  

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn't start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama's Title IX enforcement to Trump's Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?Papers discussed:“The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143“The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652

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

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

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

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Does the Constitution REQUIRE your taxpayer money to fund a charter school developed by the Catholic church?  The Supreme Court hears a case that could potentially green light the first faith-based charter school in the nation. Jenna breaks down the two sides, that each claim the other violates the U.S. Constitution. SUPPORT OUR MISSION: Love nonpartisan news? Want a bigger serving of the serious headlines?  Here's how you can become a SCOOP insider: https://www.scoop.smarthernews.com/get-the-inside-scoop/    Shop our gear!  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/smarthernews/  Website: https://smarthernews.com/  YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/smarthernews 

Leah, Melissa and Kate join forces to dig through the Trump administration's latest affronts to the law and the possibility that its officials could be held in criminal contempt. They also react in real time to the Court's decision to take up the question of birthright citizenship and cheer Harvard's stand against the administration. Finally, they take a look at what's in front of SCOTUS this week, including a new opportunity for the conservative majority to use the EPA as a punching bag and its latest foray into the culture wars.Hosts' favorite things:Melissa: White Potus (SNL); Good Dirt, Charmaine Wilkerson; Hacks (Max); Confessions of a Female Founder (with Reshma Saujani)Kate: So You Want to be a Dissident Julia Angwin & Ami Fields-Meyer (New Yorker); Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service, Michael Lewis; Just Security (Substack); Judge Wilkinson's opinion for the 4th circuit on the Abrego Garcia case; Catalina, Karla Cornejo VillavicencioLeah: Never Again Will I Visit Auschwitz: A Graphic Family Memoir of Trauma & Inheritance, Ari Richter; The Vibe Shifts Against The Right, Michelle Goldberg (NYT); Harvard's new websiteAlso mentioned this episode: The Supreme Court threatens to bring “Don't Say Gay” to every classroom in America, Ian Millhiser (Vox); Five Questions About Domestic Use of the Military, Steve Vladek (One First) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)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.