Podcast appearances and mentions of David Lat

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

David Lat spent years climbing the legal ladder, clerking, working at Wachtell, joining the DOJ, before realizing that the most meaningful part of his career wasn't going to happen in a courtroom. Joining Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg, David talks through the decisions that shaped his path, from writing a cheeky anonymous blog about federal judges to launching “Above the Law” and building one of the most influential voices in legal media. He reflects on the pressure to follow prestige, the pull of creative work, and the unexpected ways his early writing opened doors he didn't even know existed.   A serious case of COVID-19 in 2020 forced him to pause and take stock. What would it look like to return to writing on his own terms? What parts of the legal world still felt worth exploring? Those questions led to “Original Jurisdiction,” a Substack newsletter where David now shares sharp, thoughtful takes on the profession he never fully left. David also opens up about parenting two young kids with his husband Zach, navigating surrogacy, and finding ways to stay engaged without burning out. This episode is a look at what it means to shift gears without losing momentum, and how the best version of your work might be the one that feels the most like you.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Meet David Lat: From Wachtell to Legal Media 05:41 The Birth of Underneath Their Robes 06:59 Launching Above the Law 10:54 The Rise and Reach of Above the Law 13:25 Why David Stepped Away from Legal Journalism 16:23 A Life-Changing COVID-19 Experience 18:02 Starting Over with Original Jurisdiction 27:00 Legal Parenthood, Surrogacy, and Family Life 31:45 Candid Advice for Aspiring Writers and Lawyers 39:54 Big Law, AI, and the Future of the Profession   Links Connect with David Lat: Substack: https://davidlat.substack.com/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidlat/   Connect with Howard Rosenberg: LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hrosenberg/ Company web profile: https://www.baretzbrunelle.com/howard-rosenberg   Connect with Chris Batz: LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisbatz/  LinkedIn Company page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/columbus-street/ Columbus Street website: https://www.columbus-street.com/  Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm  

Pardon our legal nerd-out as Sarah Isgur, David French, Amy Howe, David Lat, and Zachary Shemtob—our dream team of SCOTUSBloggers and Advisory Opinions hosts—break down the biggest moments from the Supreme Court's term. What made this term so mellow? Which rulings came out of left field? And is Justice Jackson the Supreme Court's breakout star? The Agenda:—Mellow vibes all around—Emergency Docket vs. Merits Docket—Cert petition surprises and denials—Oral argument highlights—Justice Clarence Thomas' post-Dobbs influence—Looking ahead Show Notes:—SCOTUSblog's Stat Pack This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Also, the role of bar associations in 2025. ----- According to a new survey, lawyers think their law firms are really tolerant of jerks. Are they right about that, or just overly sensitive? The DC Bar election ended in a blowout, but why? For all the complaining about some wild theories on social media, the simpler reason is that leading a bar association in 2025 means standing up to the administration and Pam Bondi's brother never convinced the members that he'd be able to do that. In fact, the right-wing fear of strong bar associations has gotten so serious that the Florida supreme court actively kneecapped their state bar. And we talk about attending David Lat's Original Jurisdiction party, which you should also be reading.

According to a new survey, lawyers think their law firms are really tolerant of jerks. Are they right about that, or just overly sensitive? The DC Bar election ended in a blowout, but why? For all the complaining about some wild theories on social media, the simpler reason is that leading a bar association in 2025 means standing up to the administration and Pam Bondi's brother never convinced the members that he'd be able to do that. In fact, the right-wing fear of strong bar associations has gotten so serious that the Florida supreme court actively kneecapped their state bar. And we talk about attending David Lat's Original Jurisdiction party, which you should also be reading. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.June is my favorite month—because it marks the start of my favorite season, contains my birthday (now a national holiday), and happens to be LGBTQ Pride Month. In recognition of the occasion, I wanted to interview a leading LGBTQ lawyer, ideally someone working on a matter in the news. A recent guest on my podcast, noted technology litigator Neel Chatterjee, gave me a great idea. In discussing a pro bono matter that he was proud of, representing a gay couple that wanted to work with an adoption agency that refused to work with same-sex couples, he talked about the privilege of working with “one of the best lawyers I've ever worked with in my life”: Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (now the National Center for LGBTQ Rights—on Monday, NCLR announced its name change).Shannon was an excellent guest for another reason: he's working on a headline-making case. He represents the plaintiffs in Talbot v. United States, a challenge to the Trump administration's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. And despite some reasons for concern, including the fact that the Supreme Court granted emergency relief to the Trump administration in a different (but distinguishable) case involving the ban, Shannon believes that when the courts take a closer look at the issue, they will be persuaded by his clients' case.Thanks to Shannon for his insight and candor, as well as his many years of tireless work in support of LGBTQ rights and equality.Show Notes:* Shannon Minter bio, National Center for LGBTQ Rights* Shannon Minter bio, Wikipedia* Shannon Minter interview, by Mason Funk for OUTWORDSPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Is it just me, or are crises popping up all over the place? Major corporations, top law firms, and leading universities—among many other institutions—seem to be lurching from one crisis to another. And they need help—often from lawyers and law firms.So it was an opportune time for me to welcome to the podcast one of the nation's leading experts on crisis management: Debra Wong Yang, a longtime partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where she chairs the crisis-management practice. Before joining Gibson, Debra served as U.S. attorney for the Central District of California (aka Los Angeles), and before that, she spent five years as a California state-court judge. These experiences equipped her well to help clients navigate some very challenging situations—a number of which we cover in our conversation.If you're involved in leading an organization that could face a crisis in the future—which is pretty much every organization—you'll benefit from hearing about Debra's experiences in the trenches, as well as her advice on how to prepare for a possible crisis. My thanks to Deb for taking the time to share what she's learned over her long and distinguished legal career.Show Notes:* Debra Wong Yang bio, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP* Legends Limelight: Debra Wong Yang, by Katrina Dewey for Lawdragon* The Choice, by Katharine Whittemore for Boston College Law School MagazinePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

In a special live Advisory Opinions x SCOTUSblog crossover event, Sarah Isgur was joined by David French, David Lat, Zachary Shemtob, and Amy Howe (live from the Supreme Court), to react to the oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Inc. The question: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district court's nationwide preliminary injunction on the Trump administration's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, ⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.I'm very proud of the guests I've hosted on the Original Jurisdiction podcast, who are some of the most interesting and influential figures in the world of law. But I recently noticed a significant gap in their ranks: I've never hosted the general counsel or chief legal officer of a publicly traded company.To remedy this, I went big: I interviewed Sandra Leung, who recently stepped down as executive vice president and general counsel of Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), the biopharmaceutical giant that's both a Fortune 100 and S&P 100 company. Sandy worked for BMS for almost 33 years, 18 of them as GC—so she's an expert on the crucial role of in-house counsel, with lots of wise advice for GCs and CLOs. At the same time, as a former GC, she was willing to address hot-button topics that many sitting GCs might steer clear of—such as the Trump administration's executive orders targeting law firms, including how these orders should affect the thinking of GCs when considering which law firms to hire as outside counsel.This interview is also timely because May is Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month—and Sandy, a past president of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), is a longtime leader in the AANHPI community. In our conversation, we discussed why she has devoted so much of her time and energy over the years to advancing diversity—and why she believes it remains essential for organizations, despite the backlash against DEI.Thanks to Sandy for her time, insight, and many years of service to the legal profession. And congratulations to her on a long and successful tenure as GC.Show Notes:* Sandra Leung bio, NAPABA* Bristol Myers Squibb GC to Retire After 33 years With Drugmaker, by Chris O'Malley for Corporate Counsel/Law.com* Bristol-Myers GC Sandra Leung To Retire After 33 Years, by Christine DeRosa for Law360Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

The Advisory Opinions extended universe kicks off as SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and David Lat join Sarah Isgur to discuss the St. Isidore of Seville religious charter school case and the debate over school choice. The Agenda:—A ‘public' public school or a ‘private' public school?—Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusal—Will Chief Justice John Roberts be the swing vote?—Will birthright citizenship end?—May 15: Mark it on your calendar Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.

Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by Amy Howe and David Lat, of The Dispatch's extended legal universe, to debate whether the Supreme Court should be more transparent. Sarah and David then separate  fact from the fiction in the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan. (Also: should there be cameras in the Supreme Court?) The Agenda:—Cameras at SCOTUS?—SCOTUS oral argument goes off the rails—Calling other lawyers the “L” word—The arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan—Immunity doctrine is a mess—Louis Vuitton and criminal contempt—Old Whig No. 5—Trump admin and disparate impact—Harvard Law Review's DEI Show Notes:—Apply to work at SCOTUSblog!—Judge helps criminal escape in 2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Lat joins Sarah Isgur and David French to analyze what's behind the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the case agains New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The Agenda: —Friends get benefits in the Trump admin —Attorneys operating under a dual sovereignty —How good of a narc can you be? —Listener questions! —How Rome falls —Retribution —Grading the judiciary Show Notes: —Will Chamberlain's tweet —Denise Cheung resigns —AO's emergency-ish episode on Sassoon Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Because of my obsession with the judiciary, I have read, witnessed, and conducted countless interviews of judges over the years. And I'll be honest: as interview subjects, judges are a mixed bag. Some can't explain complex legal concepts in understandable ways. Others are too guarded, afraid of saying anything that might give rise to controversy—or recusal requests.Fortunately, the judges I've interviewed for the Original Jurisdiction podcast have been great—and if you'll indulge me briefly as I toot my own horn, part of this is because I've picked the right judges. I invite judges whom I know, based on my own interactions with them, to be thoughtful, thought-provoking, honest, and even fun.My latest guest, Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, continued this tradition. While not addressing any pending cases or specific legal issues that might come before him, he spoke candidly and insightfully about a number of important subjects that are in the news today—including judicial activism, judge shopping, constitutional crisis, and the state of our democracy.Thanks to Judge Chhabria for a lively and informative conversation. And thanks to him and his fellow federal judges for the important work that they do, day in and day out—which, as the past few weeks have reminded us, is essential to our democracy.Show Notes:* Vince Chhabria faculty bio, Harvard Law School* The Problem With Multidistrict Litigation (featuring Judge Chhabria), Advisory OpinionsPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.We're less than a month into the second Trump administration, and mayors of major cities are already feeling the heat. The barrage of executive orders out of the White House can be hard to keep up with—and mayors of blue cities must decide which ones to fight, which ones to go along with, and which ones to try to change.So it's an interesting—and challenging—time to be Mayor Quinton Lucas, the 55th mayor of Kansas City, Missouri. He's having to navigate what all of Trump's actions mean for the city he governs, one of the 40 largest in the country. And as a Democratic mayor in a Republican-dominated state, he has to deal with his state's government as well—sometimes confrontationally, and sometimes cooperatively.As he goes about his work, “Mayor Q” draws upon his legal training and experience—as an Eighth Circuit clerk, practicing litigator, and law professor at the University of Kansas. And he's ultimately optimistic about the future—including February 9, when his city's powerhouse football team will go up against the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LIX. Go Chiefs!Show Notes:* Meet Mayor Lucas, City of Kansas City* Post-Emption and the Mayoral Toolbox: Levers and Limits of City Resistance to State Preemption, by Quinton D. Lucas and Gavriel Schreiber for The University of Chicago Law ReviewPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Three years ago this month, in January 2022, the constitutional lawyer and scholar Ilya Shapiro almost lost his job at Georgetown Law—over a tweet. The controversy, which I covered extensively in these pages, was followed by disruptive protests of speakers at other top law schools, including Yale and Stanford.According to Shapiro, these events reflected the “illiberal takeover of legal education”—the subject of his new book, Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites. I interviewed Shapiro—about Lawless, whether the intellectual climates at law schools have improved since his near-cancellation at Georgetown, and what can be done to protect and promote free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education—in the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Ilya Shapiro bio, Manhattan Institute* Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites, Amazon* Shapiro's Gavel, Substack* Ilya Shapiro Resignation Letter to Georgetown University Law Center, June 6, 2022, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

The importance of judicial selection and confirmation is now a point of emphasis for all presidential administrations. In 2025 and going forward, what principles and considerations will govern judicial selection (and confirmation) in a new administration, with a new Senate majority. These and other important Article III issues will be considered by our panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel, Office of the Republican Minority LeaderMr. David Lat, Founder, Above the LawProf. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawModerator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

President-elect Donald Trump is poised to further shape a federal judiciary he remade during his first term. Building on his historic number of appointments, including Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, Trump will likely choose nominees that are even more reliably conservative this time around. And, because of his success moving the judiciary to the right, Democrats seeking to challenge future Trump policies have fewer options for finding a receptive forum. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporters Tiana Headley and Suzanne Monyak, along with Bloomberg Law columnist and Above the Law founder David Lat, discuss how the Trump team will select judges, who those nominees could be, and what this means for litigators. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Sarah and David kick off the podcast with (boring?) questions the Supreme Court will seek to answer this term before turning to two very American cases about education, religious schools, and guns. The Agenda: —Last week's AO episode —David Lat, we do this podcast with joy —Questions before SCOTUS —Loffman v. California Department of Education —Hanson v. District of Columbia Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWhere do I get my story ideas? Most arise organically out of the news, but some come from topic suggestions aka “pitches.” Sometimes pitches come from lawyers in the news, and sometimes they come from a lawyer or law firm's public-relations or communications team—media-savvy professionals who work for attorneys and firms to help them secure favorable press (or avoid negative coverage).Over the years, one of my best sources of pitches has been Dawn Schneider. After graduating from law school, Dawn worked in communications for two major corporations, Johnson & Johnson and Altria. She then combined her legal and media expertise and pivoted to focus on law firms, serving as director of communications at Boies Schiller Flexner. And then, ten years ago this month, she launched her own media-advisory firm, Schneider Group Media—where she continues to work for leading lawyers and law firms, as well as clients beyond the legal realm, helping them navigate a challenging, rapidly evolving media landscape.I have a fair number of readers who are interested in “alternative careers”—roles that don't involve practicing law, but where legal education and experience are valuable. So I thought it would be enlightening and enjoyable to interview Dawn, who has deployed her legal training and talent for communication in a cool and unusual way.Thanks to Dawn for joining me, and congratulations to her on Schneider Group Media's tenth anniversary.Show Notes (Dawn doesn't have much of an online presence—she prefers to keep the focus on her clients—but here's her bio, as well as pieces I've written that resulted from her work):* Dawn Schneider bio, Schneider Group Media* On The Retirement Of Miles Ruthberg And The Rise Of Litigation At Latham & Watkins, by David Lat for Above the Law* A Leading Litigation Boutique Turns 25, by David Lat for Original Jurisdiction* Boies Schiller Star's Ski Accident Tests Strength—and Builds It, by David Lat for Bloomberg LawPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Defamation law and copyright law: I have a keen interest in both, which shouldn't be surprising given what I do for a living. So two litigations I've been following closely are (1) the various defamation lawsuits brought by Dominion Voting Systems—including its case against Fox News, which settled for a whopping $787.5 million—and (2) the copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft.Besides being fascinating cases with the potential to reshape the modern American media landscape, what do these matters share in common? The plaintiffs have the same lawyer: Susman Godfrey partner Davida Brook. Although she's only 40, she has already been recognized as one of the nation's top trial attorneys by Forbes, The American Lawyer, Law360, Lawdragon, and many other publications.Davida and I first met years ago, when I spoke at Stanford Law School and she was a student (yes, I'm that old). So I thought it would be fun to catch up by having her on the podcast—and it was.We discussed her impressive career path; the Dominion and Times cases, including their possible societal implications; and what it was like to work with and learn from the late Steve Susman, founder of Susman Godfrey and an all-time great courtroom advocate. You can tune into our conversation, covering these and many other subjects, in this new episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Davida Brook bio, Susman Godfrey* Meet America's Top 200 Lawyers (2024), by Liane Jackson for Forbes* Lawyer Limelight: Davida Brook, by Katrina Dewey for LawdragonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

The number of non-equity partners has ballooned in recent years, with some data estimating there will soon be more of them at law firms than full partners. But not all of these attorneys are happy with their job classification. There are several ongoing employment lawsuits against firms from non-equity partners who claim they get the worst of both worlds: none of the profit sharing that full partners enjoy, but also no benefits or tax withholding that's standard for most employees. The guest on today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits, says the non-equity partnership can benefit both lawyers and firms—if it's managed well. David Lat, author of the Original Jurisdiction newsletter and a Bloomberg Law columnist, talks about how firms can do make the non equity title work for everyone, and what types of attorneys can benefit. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

David Lat joins Sarah and David to break down recent Supreme Court trends and discuss Lat's legal fiction novel, Supreme Ambitions. The Agenda: —Is the shadow docket problem solved? —Supreme Court approval rating —Stabilizing the Supreme Court —Lat's pick for most interesting justice —Who will win the text, history, and tradition fight? —Advice for law students —Lat's book, Supreme Ambitions —Stranger than legal fiction —Male authors writing female protagonists —Lat's favorite legal writing —The return of crime procedurals Show Notes: —Shadow docket on Biden Title IX regulations —Advisory Opinions on Presumed Innocent Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Here's a trivia question for devotees of Original Jurisdiction: excluding Supreme Court justices and Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been most frequently recognized in these pages as Judge of the Week? It's a tie between a pair of four-time honorees: Judge James Ho (5th Cir.), whom I've previously interviewed, and Judge Kevin Newsom (11th Cir.)—my latest guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast.This month marks the seventh anniversary of Judge Newsom's appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. And although seven years is not a long time by the standards of judicial service, Judge Newsom has already developed a national reputation as one of the sharpest thinkers and writers on the federal bench.How has he put himself on the map? Many of history's most celebrated jurists have done so through dazzling dissents, such as Justice John Marshall Harlan, often called “The Great Dissenter,” and Justice Antonin Scalia.But Judge Newsom has done so through a more unusual vehicle: the concurrence (including the occasional self-concurrence, i.e., a concurrence to his own majority opinion). In a series of thoughtful and scholarly concurrences, he has tackled some of the messiest doctrinal areas and knottiest problems in American law, including standing, nondelegation, complex First and Second Amendment issues, the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, and jurisdiction under Bell v. Hood.Judge Newsom and I discuss why he writes these concurrences—plus Justice Elena Kagan's critique of superfluous concurrences, how to hire great law clerks (and feed them to the Supreme Court), and the potential utility of AI for originalism—in the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Judge Kevin C. Newsom bio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit* Remarks of Judge Kevin C. Newsom, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy* Interview of Judge Kevin Newsom, by David Oscar Markus for For the DefensePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!By next Thursday, August 16, creditors must vote on whether to approve the Chapter 11 liquidation plan of FTX, the once high-flying cryptocurrency exchange. FTX's former CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried aka SBF—the son of two Stanford law professors, who went on to become one of the world's youngest billionaires—is behind bars. He's in the process of appealing his convictions for fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering, as well as his 25-year prison sentence.Ryne Miller served as general counsel of FTX US, one of several corporate entities that was part of the sprawling FTX empire. Working out of New York, he was not part of SBF's high-living, Bahamas-based inner circle. But after a fateful phone call in November 2022 from SBF's father, Joe Bankman, informing Ryne of a multibillion-dollar “liquidity hole”—some $8 billion to $10 billion in FTX customer deposits that had somehow gone missing—he played a crucial role in responding to the situation. By the end of that week, FTX was in bankruptcy.Why did Ryne leave a partnership at Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the world's leading law firms, to become the GC of FTX US? Should he have noticed certain red flags at the company, such as the lack of a board or a weak compliance function? What lessons does he draw from his time at the company? And how is he putting them to work today at his new law firm, Miller Strategic Partners, which marks its one-year anniversary next month? Ryne and I covered all this and more, in the latest edition of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Ryne Miller bio, Miller Strategic Partners* Former FTX general counsel starts his own law firm, by MK Manoylov for The BlockPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

In this epidose of "Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers," David Lat and Zach Sandberg discuss the newly released 2024 Vault Rankings. How are the Vault rankings formulated? Who moved up? Who dropped down? And why? For the Move of the Week, David discusses Norton Rose's hiring of a 12 attorney team from Bryan Cave, while Zach analyzes Mayer Brown's addition of Gabrielle Levin from Gibson Dunn to co-lead their Employment Litigation & Counseling practice.

David Lat takes over the guest chair and joins Sarah to discuss recent SCOTUS decisions. The Agenda: —SCOTUS bumps bump stock case to Congress —Lily Ledbetter and the last time Congress did their job —Mifepristone decision —Trump too small? Maybe, but you can't trademark it —Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson's playful relationship —NLRB and defending the administrative state —Justice Alito is secretly recorded —Young Thug's messy court trial —Predicting SCOTUS decisions —Sentencing and appeals in the Hunter Biden saga Show Notes: —Peggy Noonan's response to Alito-gate —David Lat and "underneath their robes" —The Mo News Podcast Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWhat's the most widely cited legal book in the world? If you guessed Black's Law Dictionary, then congratulate yourself. Henry Campbell Black published the first edition in 1891, and today it's a must-have for every lawyer and law student. I even make an appearance in Black's as the coiner of the term “benchslap,” defined as “a judge's sharp rebuke of counsel, a litigant, or perhaps another judge.”Who decides whether a term has gained sufficient traction to make it into Black's? That would be Bryan Garner, the prominent legal lexicographer, lawyer, and legal-writing expert. In the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast, he explains how he and his colleagues determine whether a neologism has made the cut.This is actually a bonus episode of the podcast, since I posted an episode last week and I'll have another episode next week. What's the occasion? Today marks the publication of the twelfth edition of Black's Law Dictionary. If you're looking for a graduation or back-to-school gift for a law student, or maybe a Father's Day gift for a #LawDad in your life, order your copy today.Thanks to Bryan for joining me, and congratulations to him and his team on the latest edition of Black's Law Dictionary.Show Notes:* Bryan A. Garner bio, LawProse* Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed.), Amazon* Black's Law Dictionary: An Interview with Bryan A. Garner, by David Lat for Above the LawPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!After my fascinating conversation with Rodge Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell, I wanted to interview another transactional lawyer for the Original Jurisdiction podcast. But to mix things up, I wanted to speak with an up-and-coming dealmaker rather than a senior statesperson. And because May is Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Heritage Month, I was hoping to feature a lawyer of AANHPI descent.Meet Shanu Bajaj, a mergers and acquisitions partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell. Although she hasn't been a partner for long, Shanu has already been recognized as a star of the M&A bar. In February, she took the #3 spot in the MergerLinks ranking of Top Female M&A lawyers in North America. In March, The American Lawyer named Shanu one of its 2024 Dealmakers of the Year, based on her representation of ExxonMobil in 2023's largest transaction, the oil giant's $59.5 billion purchase of Pioneer Natural Resources.What drew Shanu to M&A as a practice area? What are two abilities that she views as especially important for transactional attorneys? How does she describe her personal style as a dealmaker? And what are her tips for making partner in Biglaw, during a time when the rewards are richer—but the odds are longer—than ever?Thanks to Shanu for taking the time to tackle these and many other topics with me, and congratulations to her on the well-deserved recognition of her talents. And with decades of deals ahead of her, she's just getting warmed up.Show Notes:* Shanu Bajaj bio, Davis Polk & Wardwell* The 2024 Dealmakers of The Year, The American Lawyer* Which M&A Attorneys Drove the Most Business as Deal Leads?, by Patrick Smith for The American LawyerPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

This week, on Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers, our hosts David Lat and Zach Sandberg do a deep dive on the most recent set of the American Lawyer's famed law firm rankings—both the Am Law 100 ranking, which came out last month, and the Second Hundred ranking, which was just released. Who is moving up in the world? Are there firms struggling? What factors are driving the success of the firms that are flourishing? Join our hosts as they run through numerous metrics that measure a firm's financial health and performance in this must-listen episode. For his move of the week, David follows another high-profile acquisition by Paul Weiss, which seems to be on a hiring spree, while Zach breaks down Baker McKenzie's onboarding of a major West Coast transactional team from Munger.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!It might seem odd to bestow the title of “titan” upon someone once described in the New York Times as standing five-foot-two and weighing 100 pounds wet. But if you know anything about banking M&A and regulatory work, you know that H. Rodgin Cohen, senior chair of Sullivan & Cromwell, is a true giant of the field.For more than 50 years, Rodge Cohen has practiced at the pinnacle of financial-services law. He's played a role in many historical events over the decades, including New York City's fiscal crisis, where he helped rescue the city from the brink of bankruptcy in 1975; the Iran hostage crisis, where he counseled American banks that released frozen Iranian funds, part of the deal that led to the 1981 release of the hostages; the 2008 financial crisis, where he represented the buyer or the seller in seemingly every major bank deal; and efforts last year to save Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank.In my latest podcast episode, I interview Rodge about his remarkable career, including his involvement in the aforementioned, headline-making events. But we also cover his childhood in West Virginia, his advice for how to succeed as a deal lawyer, and even his theater and reading recommendations—because despite his demanding practice, Rodge somehow finds the time to see numerous shows and read tons of books. (One recent work we both recommend is Paula Vogel's Mother Play, which yesterday snagged four Tony Award nominations, including Best New Play.)For my first-ever interview of a corporate or transactional attorney (as opposed to a litigator), I wanted to get a big name—and Rodge Cohen is one of the biggest and best in the business. I guessed that he would be “too big to fail”—and if you listen to our enjoyable and wide-ranging conversation, you'll see that I was right.Show Notes:* H. Rodgin Cohen bio, Sullivan & Cromwell* H. Rodgin Cohen profile, Chambers and Partners* Trauma Surgeon of Wall Street, by Alan Feuer for the New York Times* The Banking Industry's Go-to Crisis Adviser, by DealBook for the New York TimesPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!How many Supreme Court advocates wind up with three or more arguments in the same Term? Some of my past podcast guests—like Lisa Blatt, Paul Clement, Neal Katyal, and Kannon Shanmugam—can claim this distinction. But it's very, very rare (especially if you don't work—or have never worked—in the Office of the Solicitor General).What's even more rare is having three oral arguments in your very first Term arguing before the Court. But Easha Anand, the 38-year-old co-director of Stanford Law School's renowned Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, just pulled off this feat—which is why I was so eager to have her as a guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast.How did Easha wind up in law school, after a promising journalism career that included stints at the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Wall Street Journal? How did she wind up with three Supreme Court arguments in the same Term? And what are her three pieces of advice for first-time SCOTUS advocates?Listen to our podcast interview to find out. Congratulations to Easha on the unanimous win in her first argued case, thanks to her for joining me, and good luck to her in what I predict will be a long and successful career arguing at One First Street.Show Notes:* Easha Anand bio, Stanford Law School* Stanford's Anand Argues Whistleblower Case in High Court Debut, by Lydia Wheeler for Bloomberg Law* Supreme Court Bar's Breakout Lawyer This Term Started Out in Journalism, by Jimmy Hoover for the National Law JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

David Lat is a lawyer turned legal writer who created Above The Law and his current, legal newsletter and podcast Original Jurisdiction, which is now his full-time job. Prior to writing he was a practicing attorney and worked as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice under Chris Christie. David is a husband and the father of two kids. In today's conversation we discussed: * The transition from an in-house legal career to the world of writing and podcasting and what that has done for his family* Surrogacy* Important legal considerations for parents* Navigating feelings of parental guilt* How to talk to your kids about different family types and configurations* The fallacy of making logical appeals to children* His approach to interviewing for childcareListen now on Apple, Spotify, Overcast and YouTube.—Where to find David Lat- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidlat/- Twitter: https://twitter.com/DavidLat- Original Jurisdiction: https://davidlat.substack.com/ Where to find Adam Fishman- FishmanAF Newsletter: www.FishmanAFNewsletter.com- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamjfishman/- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/startupdadpod/—In this episode, we cover[1:47] Welcome[2:04] Professional background[2:53] The decision to go from practicing law to writing about law[5:02] David's family now[5:37] Their decision to start a family[7:21] Surrogacy[9:37] Family/work balance[12:34] Was career choice influenced by becoming a dad?[14:54] Legal considerations for parents[17:32] What is a pre-birth order?[19:11] Earliest memory of becoming a dad[20:57] What emotions came up when you realized it was “real”?[22:57] Most surprising thing about becoming a dad?[25:15] Advice for younger self[28:40] His interview approach for childcare[30:17] Parental guilt[34:56] Parenting Frameworks[36:27] How has your parenting style changed over time?[38:10] Area where David and his partner don't align[40:30] Logical appeals vs. children[41:59] How do you recharge your batteries?[43:38] What is a mistake you made as a dad?[45:02] Talking to son about same-sex parenting[48:27] Follow along[49:23] Rapid fire—Show references:Clueless: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112697/Carly Aroldi, Good Enough Parenting: http://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/good-enough-parenting/id1708282417Creative Family Connections: https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/Chris Christie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_ChristieChris Christie on David's Podcast: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/chris-christie-podcast-interview-with-david-latAbove The Law: https://abovethelaw.com/BabyConnect: https://en.babyconnect.com/My Two Dads and Me by Michael Joosten: https://www.amazon.com/My-Two-Dads-Michael-Joosten/dp/0525580107Snoo: https://www.amazon.com/SNOO-Smart-Sleeper-Happiest-Baby/dp/B0716KN18Z—For sponsorship inquiries email: podcast@fishmana.com.For Startup Dad Merch: www.startupdadshop.com Production support for Startup Dad is provided by Tommy Harron athttp://www.armaziproductions.com/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit startupdadpod.substack.com

David Lat is a lawyer turned legal writer who created Above The Law and his current, legal newsletter and podcast Original Jurisdiction, which is now his full-time job. Prior to writing he was a practicing attorney and worked as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice under Chris Christie. David is a husband and the father of two kids. In today's conversation we discussed:  The transition from an in-house legal career to the world of writing and podcasting and what that has done for his family Surrogacy Important legal considerations for parents Navigating feelings of parental guilt How to talk to your kids about different family types and configurations The fallacy of making logical appeals to children His approach to interviewing for childcare — Where to find David Lat - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidlat/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/DavidLat - Original Jurisdiction: https://davidlat.substack.com/    Where to find Adam Fishman - FishmanAF Newsletter: https://www.fishmanafnewsletter.com - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamjfishman/ - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/startupdadpod/ — In this episode, we cover [1:47] Welcome [2:04] Professional background [2:53] The decision to go from practicing law to writing about law [5:02] David's family now [5:37] Their decision to start a family [7:21] Surrogacy [9:37] Family/work balance [12:34] Was career choice influenced by becoming a dad? [14:54] Legal considerations for parents [17:32] What is a pre-birth order? [19:11] Earliest memory of becoming a dad [20:57] What emotions came up when you realized it was “real”? [22:57] Most surprising thing about becoming a dad? [25:15] Advice for younger self [28:40] His interview approach for childcare [30:17] Parental guilt [34:56] Parenting Frameworks [36:27] How has your parenting style changed over time? [38:10] Area where David and his partner don't align [40:30] Logical appeals vs. children [41:59] How do you recharge your batteries? [43:38] What is a mistake you made as a dad? [45:02] Talking to son about same-sex parenting [48:27] Follow along [49:23] Rapid fire — Show references: Clueless: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112697/ Carly Aroldi, Good Enough Parenting: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/good-enough-parenting/id1708282417 Creative Family Connections: https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/ Chris Christie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie Chris Christie on David's Podcast: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/chris-christie-podcast-interview-with-david-lat Above The Law: https://abovethelaw.com/ BabyConnect: https://en.babyconnect.com/ My Two Dads and Me by Michael Joosten: https://www.amazon.com/My-Two-Dads-Michael-Joosten/dp/0525580107 Snoo: https://www.amazon.com/SNOO-Smart-Sleeper-Happiest-Baby/dp/B0716KN18Z — For sponsorship inquiries email: podcast@fishmana.com. For Startup Dad Merch: www.startupdadshop.com  Production support for Startup Dad is provided by Tommy Harron at http://www.armaziproductions.com/

In this double-guest special, David Lat shares his original reporting on the exodus of Judge Aileen Cannon's clerks and its implications for Trump's classified documents case. Judge David Proctor of the Northern District of Alabama then joins to explain the history and function of the federal judiciary and its committees, including the Judicial Conference. The Agenda: —Do younger clerks just not understand hard work? —Judge Cannon's declining reputation —Delays in Trump's documents case —How the federal judiciary came to be —Rule-making process for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure —Multi-district litigation and its criticisms Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!Chris Christie has had an interesting and eventful career in public life. He served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey from 2002 to 2008, then as Governor of the Garden State from 2010 to 2018. And he was a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, until his January withdrawal from the race.People tend to have strong opinions about Christie. Some respect his outspoken criticism of Donald Trump, which was the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Others do not—perhaps because they support Trump, or perhaps because they can't forgive Christie for having been for Trump before he was against him. (In some ways Christie is his own harshest critic for this, admitting in his speech withdrawing from the race that he endorsed Trump because he put personal ambition over what he knew was right.)I'm not a neutral observer when it comes to Chris Christie. I worked for him as an assistant U.S. attorney from 2003 to 2006, and I like and respect him a great deal. As we discuss at the start of this podcast episode, I'm especially grateful for how he dealt with me in the wake of the scandal over my very first blog, Underneath Their Robes. But that didn't stop me from asking him difficult questions on the podcast, including his biggest regrets—yes, he talks about Bridgegate—and whom he might vote for in the presidential election. We also review his legal career, including his advice for law students and his three biggest cases as U.S. Attorney.Congratulations to Governor Christie on his latest book—What Would Reagan Do? Life Lessons from the Last Great President, which we discuss on the podcast—and thanks to him for both his past kindness and willingness to join me today.Show Notes:* Chris Christie bio, Christie 55 Solutions* What Would Reagan Do? Life Lessons from the Last Great President, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

David Lat is a lawyer-turned-writer, who publishes a weekly newsletter on Substack titled “Original Jurisdiction.” He joins Preet to discuss the federal judiciary, Trump's many trials, and the free speech controversies roiling universities and law schools around the country.  Plus, what would a Trump DOJ look like the second time around? How will SCOTUS' decision to consider the presidential immunity issue affect Trump's trial calendar? And can an AI chatbot testify in court?  For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/david-lat-federal-judges-trump-trials-supreme-court-free-speech/ Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on Threads, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join David Lat and Zach Sandberg on Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers as they chat with Emily Logan Stedman, newly appointed partner at Husch Blackwell and advocate for lawyer well-being. Emily shares her journey to partnership, her commitment to mental health in the legal community, and how she balances leadership with personal well-being. She discusses the evolving role of women in law, mentoring, and her strategies for personal branding and business development. Emily also offers advice to junior associates and law students, including the use of the billable hour as a time-management tool. In Moves of the Week, we spotlight Kimberly Branscome's move to Paul, Weiss in Los Angeles, King & Spalding welcoming longtime Hollingsworth litigator Greg Chernack in DC, and Hogan Lovells hiring 23 M&A lawyers from Orrick in Italy. Tune in for insights on legal career growth, mental health advocacy, and the importance of personal branding. Don't forget to rate, review, subscribe, and share with your network!

At the age of 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest federal judge. In 1984, Judge Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In April of last year, reports surfaced that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. Although the complaint was initially based on alleged “cognitive decline,” it later morphed to focus on her unwillingness to cooperate with Judge Moore's investigation. This program will provide an update on Judge Newman's case and discuss issues related to this most-unusual set of circumstances. This program coincides with panelist David Lat's recent interview with Judge Newman, available here, which allows viewers to hear Judge Newman in her own words. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability released an opinion in the case, available here. Check out this recording for a discussion of Judge Newman's case, the state of judicial conduct, and more.Featuring: David Lat, Founder, Original JurisdictionProf. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!In part one of my two-part interview of David Boies, I asked the famed trial lawyer to do what he does best: analyze cases and controversies. In part two, we turned to a topic that's closer to home: David Boies.My husband Zach tells me that I'm too soft as an interviewer. Trying to prove him wrong, I asked David some tough questions about sensitive subjects. Do you rue the day you met Elizabeth Holmes? What do you regret about your work for Harvey Weinstein? Why doesn't Boies Schiller Flexner have an anti-nepotism policy? What will be in your Times obituary?I've interviewed David on multiple occasions over the years, and we've never had any tense moments—until now. If you usually read my podcast interviews, you might want to listen to this one.David fielded my aggressive questions thoughtfully, eloquently, and graciously—which is exactly what I expected of this legal lion. But listen for yourself and reach your own verdict on David Boies.Show Notes:* David Boies Pleads Not Guilty, by James B. Stewart for the New York Times* The Bad, Good Lawyer, by Andrew Rice for New York MagazinePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

Join David Lat and Zach Sandberg on Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers as they chat with Matt Schwartz, Practice Group Leader and Chair of the US Finance Group at DLA Piper. Matt shares his journey from starting at DLA Piper to running finance transactions to leading the US practice group. He also talks about the evolution and current state of the finance industry, as well as what he expects in the finance world in 2024. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the value of mentorship, for mentors as well as mentees, plus practical advice from Matt about time management. In Moves of the Week, we spotlight one Cravath partner joining Davis Polk, a second going to Freshfields, and Debevoise welcoming Rick Sofield as partner, enhancing its national security offerings. Tune in for a comprehensive look at legal excellence and leadership. Ad don't forget to rate, review, subscribe, and share with your network!

Guest: ✨ Colin S. Levy, Author & Director of Legal at Malbek [@HelloMalbek]On Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/colinslevy/On Twitter | https://twitter.com/Clevy_LawWebsite | https://www.colinslevy.com/____________________________Host: Marco Ciappelli, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining Society PodcastOn ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/marco-ciappelli_____________________________This Episode's SponsorsBlackCloak

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!For the past 10 months, the legal world has been transfixed by the Pauline Newman saga. At 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest active federal judge. Last March, her longtime colleague, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, initiated an effort to remove Judge Newman from the Federal Circuit.The complaint against Judge Newman was initially based on her supposed “cognitive decline” and “paranoid and bizarre behavior,” but it later morphed to focus on her unwillingness to cooperate with Chief Judge Moore's investigation. Judge Newman said she'd be happy to cooperate with an investigation—as long as it's conducted by a neutral party, namely, the judicial council of another circuit.As I have written repeatedly, I agree with Judge Newman on her due-process argument. It's routine for circuit judges to transfer an investigation of a fellow circuit judge—as opposed to, say, a district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judge—to another circuit. And there are some interpersonal issues between Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman, which I might write about in the future, that make it completely inappropriate for Moore to be leading this investigation.I was agnostic, however, on Judge Newman's mental capacity. I read, along with everyone else, the gossipy details in Chief Judge Moore's various reports that made Newman sound, well, totally out of it. But I also read and heard accounts from other sources—such as journalists who visited Newman in chambers, and lawyers who saw her speak at conferences—stating that she's just fine.On January 4, I met with Judge Newman and her clerks in chambers, for about four hours. Last Friday, I interviewed Judge Newman on my podcast, for another hour. I'm now of the view that she's completely lucid and sane—and I have reason to disbelieve or at least question much of what I've read in the takedowns of her. (I'm hoping to publish a deep dive into the drama at the Federal Circuit, which is actually quite fascinating—and if you have information or insight to share, please email me.)But you don't have to take my word for it when it comes to Judge Newman's condition. Listen to our almost hour-long podcast conversation—or watch video clips of the judge that I'll be posting later this week, at her request—and judge for yourself.Show Notes:* Pauline Newman bio, Wikipedia* Colleagues want a 95-year-old judge to retire. She's suing them instead, by Rachel Weiner for the Washington Post* Fed. Circuit's Newman, 96, Fights Colleagues From Sideline, by Michael Shapiro for Bloomberg LawPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

Join us on Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers, where hosts David Lat and Zach Sandberg sit down with Kannon Shanmugam, one of the nation's preeminent Supreme Court advocates. A partner at Paul, Weiss, Kannon serves as chair of the firm's Supreme Court and appellate practice, chair of the D.C. office, and co-chair of litigation. On the podcast, he discusses how his study of the classics was an ideal background for a lawyer, his distinctive style as a Supreme Court litigator, and his approaches to teaching advocacy and mentorship. Kannon also reflects on his time at Paul, Weiss, which he joined five years ago this month, and shares some of the strategies behind its remarkable success, as well as his career advice for law students and lawyers. In this week's Moves of the Week, David shares the news of Torridon Law, the law firm founded by former attorney general Bill Barr and former Facebook general counsel Ted Ullyot, hiring former White House lawyers Pat Cipollone, Pat Philbin, and Kate Todd, while Zach highlights McDermott's strategic addition of a healthcare team from Wilson Sonsini. Don't miss this episode for an in-depth look at legal excellence and leadership. Remember to rate, review, subscribe, and share Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers with your colleagues and friends!

In this episode of Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers, join us as we chat with Summer Eberhard, a Principal in our California and Seattle offices. Summer shares her journey from attorney to legal recruiter and delves into the recruiting scene across California and Seattle, highlighting the changing landscape of the legal industry over the last decade and current market trends. She also discusses her approach providing invaluable advice for legal professionals navigating their career paths and the role of diversity and inclusion in modern recruitment. In our 'Move of the Week' segment, host Zach Sandberg spotlights a significant development: DLA Piper's Antitrust Team expanding with three former Norton Rose Litigators. Tune in for an insightful exploration of the legal recruiting landscape and expert career guidance. Don't forget to rate, review, subscribe, and share with your network!  

Sarah joins David Lat's Original Jurisdiction to review 2023's best (and worst) legal cases and lawyers and make some hopeful (and less hopeful) predictions about the coming year. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Exciting news from host-in-absentia Sarah Isgur. Partisan gerrymandering. Cameras in courts. David French and guest-host David Lat have so much to cover in so little time. Here we go: -New arrivals -Purdue Pharma update -Should the Trump trials be televised? (The Davids disagree) -Wisconsin's judicial elections mess -Alabama's ongoing redistricting wars and systemic racism -Elon Musk goes after the ADL Show notes: -2020 DOJ press release on Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family -Just Security on Judge Jones's supplemental briefing order -Caplan v. Trump (Section 3 ruling) -Charlie Sykes on the Wisconsin Supreme Court drama -Singleton v. Allen (Alabama Voting Rights Act case) -David Firestone on Alabama Voting Rights Act case -Elon Musk blames ADL for lost revenue (NBC) -Musk blames Latham for San Francisco's problems. Huh? (Reuters) -David French's NYT column on Texas age-verification law -AO episode featuring Ari Cohn on age-verification laws -Video version of this episode Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The DnD show begins as David Lat returns to co-guest host in Sarah's absence. David and David discuss a strange First Amendment case out of the Fifth Circuit involving terrorism and COVID zombies, and: -Jan. 6 fake electors case -Non-delegation at the Sixth Circuit -Some drama with Big Law -Breaking News: Trump court date set Show notes: Georgia amicus brief opposing removal Bailey v. Iles (Fifth Circuit free-speech case) Allstates Refractory Contractors v. Su (Sixth Circuit nondelegation case) Chris Geidner on Allstates Jonathan Adler on stare decisis MoFo complaint Perkins Coie complaint Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Lat stands in for Host Emeritus once more to help Sarah catch up on the latest Supreme Court decisions. Too, they take a detour on penmanship. -Why the justices make us wait -On Puerto Rico's sovereign immunity and Kagan's stylistic quirk -Durham Report -Judge Newman, age, and lifetime tenure -New law school rankings just dropped Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While host emeritus is off for a week on a mysterious mission, David Lat of Original Jurisdiction rejoins Sarah to sift through the latest Supreme Court decisions. On the docket: -Gettysburg update -Attempting to answer when individual members of Congress can go to court -The unsatisfying end to Pork Producers -Buffalo Billion, New York, and federal wire fraud -Setting the table for Title 42 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices