Podcast appearances and mentions of david pozen

This week, the Court weighed in on two cases arising out of the Trump administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport people to El Salvador. Kate, Melissa, and Leah break down both rulings, looking at how SCOTUS is giving leeway to the administration. For the second part of the show, Deborah Archer, professor of law at NYU and president of the ACLU, joins to talk about her new book, Dividing Lines: How Transportation Infrastructure Reinforces Racial Inequality.Hosts' favorite things this week:Leah: Dividing Lines, Deborah Archer; Why Universities Must Start Litigating—and How (The Nation), David Pozen, Ryan Doerfler, and Samuel Bagenstos; The Case for Suing, Adam UnikowskyKate: Princeton President Chris Eisgruber on The Daily; Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service, Michael LewisMelissa: Up Home: One Girl's Journey, Ruth J. Simmons; The White Lotus (Max)Vote for Less Radical in the Webby Awards here and here! Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

After an emergency intro looking at the Fifth Circuit's bonkers mail-in ballot decision, the ladies do a deep dive on two books. First, they speak with New York Times correspondents Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias about The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America. Then, David Pozen of Columbia Law School joins to talk about The Constitution of the War on Drugs, his book about how the war on drugs influenced the constitutional law we have today. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/drugs-addiction-and-recovery

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year—all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment? In The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024), David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today. This book is available open access here.

With the long weekend in the books, summer's officially here. School's out, and we can't imagine why people would be thinking about American universities – has anything interesting or controversial been happening on campus recently? (Our field correspondent David Pozen reports.) Anyway, today's episode is the last episode of the season, and we're excited to let this one linger in your minds for the next few months. Today's very special guest is the MacArthur “Genius” Award-winning Dylan C. Penningroth, Professor of Law and Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley, here to discuss his wonderful new book Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights. Penningroth begins by showing how his research expands the scope of African American history to everyday legal relations between Black individuals and discusses his great-great-great-uncle as a great example. After Sam and Penningroth frame the conversation as one about Black people using private rights in support of the southern economy, David follows up with a question about the inevitability of capitalism. Next, Penningroth makes the case that his account complements, instead of contradicts, the politically-focused work of W.E.B. DuBois and historians like Risa Goluboff and Eric Foner. We end this semester with some advice for social movements. See you on the other side, listeners. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “The Privilege of Family History” by Kendra T. Field “Race in Contract Law” by Dylan C. Penningroth “Why the Constitution was Written Down” by Nikolas Bowie Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy by Eric Foner Saving the Neighborhood: Racially Restrictive Covenants, Law, and Social Norms by Richard R. W. Brooks and Carol M. Rose The Lost Promise of Civil Rights by Risa L. Goluboff Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality by Richard Kluger

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, “The Constitution of the War on Drugs,” which examines the relationship between the Constitution and drug prohibitions. He joined Jack Goldsmith to talk about the constitutional history of the war on drugs and why the drug war was not curbed by constitutional doctrines about personal autonomy, limits on the federal government's power, the Equal Protection Clause, or the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. They also talked about whether the political process is working with advancing decriminalization and how this impacts the constitutional dimension of the drug war.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David Pozen, a professor at Columbia Law School and author of “The Constitution of the War on Drugs,” discusses the federal government's moves toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter, discusses the major decisions the justices will rule on in the next two months. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Columbia Law School's David Pozen explores Americans' right to use drugs in his new book "The Constitution of the War on Drugs."Then, Zak Garner-Purkis, Investigations Editor at the UK's Daily Express, takes us inside the April 20 anti-tourism protests on the Canary islands.And the St. Regis highlights their dining options with Chef Lawrence Abrams and Executive Sous Chef Jason Lahrman.

On the Brink of the Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza as Ceasefire Talks Are Deadlocked | The DEA's Decriminalization of Marijuana as Too Little Too Late | Could a Change in DEA Policy Revive California's Troubled Marijuana Industry? backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/drugs-addiction-and-recovery

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford UP, 2024). An expert in constitutional law, Pozen argues that the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster, in terms of money, efficacy, and human rights. But even as activists peel off the drug war's more unsavory aspects through cannabis and psychedelic legalization, Pozen also argues that they've neglected to consider the impact America's courts could have on rectifying oppressive drug laws. It wasn't always this way. The Constitution of the War on Drugs also details the “hidden history” of a brief legal moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when lawyers effectively argued for liberalized drug policies – on the sound basis of the Constitution. The moment was eventually overturned, but Pozen argues it could be a useful historical lesson for people interested in the effects of constitutional law on the drug war today. A link to the digital edition of The Constitution of the War on Drugs will soon be available here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is coming out soon from the University of Chicago Press.

Have you ever wondered about the legal history of the war on drugs? Even if you haven't, we won't mollycoddle you – this episode's a trip. Our guest on today's podcast is a scholar of constitutional law and information law known for really getting in the weeds and dunking what we think we know in an acid bath. We're delighted to have joining us today the radical David Pozen, Charles Keller Beekman Professor at Columbia Law School, here to talk about his far out new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs. In this episode, we dive into the law, politics, and history of drug legalization and criminalization in the United States. We begin by Pozen giving an impassioned plea for how the war on drugs implicates racial justice, equal protection, federalism, and cruel and unusual punishment. Next, Sam dunks on history. Throughout the episode, we discuss the political economy of drugs (New York's botched marijuana rollout) and generational divides (Clinton's “I didn't inhale”). We end by contemplating the brain-bending, otherworldly potential of the First Amendment to protect heightened brain states. Pour yourself a Coke and enjoy. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “Silver Blaze” by Arthur Conan Doyle “Beyond Carolene Products” by Bruce Ackerman The American Disease: Origins Of Narcotic Control by David Musto “The Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law” by Jesse Wegman The Age of Addiction: How Bad Habits Became Big Business by David Courtwright How to Change Your Mind by Michael Pollan

Bloomberg Legal Reporter David Yaffe-Bellany discusses the long line of people trying to get a last minute pardon from President Trump and those reportedly on his pardon list. David Pozen, a professor at Columbia Law School who clerked for Judge Merrick Garland, discusses Garland's nomination to be the next Attorney General. June Grasso hosts.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Bloomberg Legal Reporter David Yaffe-Bellany discusses the long line of people trying to get a last minute pardon from President Trump and those reportedly on his pardon list. David Pozen, a professor at Columbia Law School who clerked for Judge Merrick Garland, discusses Garland's nomination to be the next Attorney General. June Grasso hosts. 

Constitutional Law expert David Pozen, a professor at Columbia Law School, discuses the wide array of options being considered to change the balance on the Supreme Court which now has a 6 to 3 conservative majority. Bloomberg News Supreme Court Reporter Greg Stohr discusses the split Supreme Court decisions on mail-in ballots. June Grasso hosts.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Constitutional Law expert David Pozen, a professor at Columbia Law School, discuses the wide array of options being considered to change the balance on the Supreme Court which now has a 6 to 3 conservative majority. Bloomberg News Supreme Court Reporter Greg Stohr discusses the split Supreme Court decisions on mail-in ballots. June Grasso hosts. 

How do you get a more balanced Supreme Court? Rick discusses court-packing with Columbia Law professor David Pozen.

In light of President Trump and numerous other high-ranking government officials recently contracting Covid-19—this week’s episode explores the 25th Amendment, which outlines what happens if the President becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. We explore questions related to current concerns including: should President Trump have invoked the 25th Amendment when he was in the hospital? And questions that have arisen throughout American history such as: What happens if a vacancy in the office of president or vice president arises? What mechanisms does the 25th Amendment lay out for coping with that situation, and what scenarios does it fail to provide solutions for? What if the president is unable to fill his role but won’t step aside? And more. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional scholars David Pozen and Brian Kalt, who wrote an essay explaining the 25th Amendment for the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution which you can read here https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xxv/interps/159   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In light of President Trump and numerous other high-ranking government officials recently contracting COVID-19, this week’s episode explores the 25th Amendment, which outlines what happens if the president becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. We explore questions related to current concerns including: should President Trump have invoked the 25th Amendment when he was in the hospital? And questions that have arisen throughout American history such as: What happens if a vacancy in the office of president or vice president arises? What mechanisms does the 25th Amendment lay out for coping with that situation, and what scenarios does it fail to provide solutions for? What if the president is unable to fill his role but won’t step aside? And more. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional scholars David Pozen and Brian Kalt, who wrote an essay explaining the 25th Amendment for the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution which you can read here https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xxv/interps/159   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week JFK sits down with David Pozen of Columbia Law about his book Troubling Transparency: The History and Future of Freedom of Information. He teaches and writes about constitutional law and information law, among other topics. For the 2017-2018 academic year, Pozen was the inaugural visiting scholar at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. From 2010 to 2012, Pozen served as special advisor to Harold Hongju Koh at the Department of State. Previously, Pozen was a law clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Merrick B. Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and a special assistant to Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pozen's scholarship has been discussed in the New Yorker, New York Times, Washington Post, Harper's, Politico, Salon, Slate, Time, American Scholar, and numerous other publications. In 2019, the American Law Institute named Pozen the recipient of its Early Career Scholars Medal, which is awarded every other year to "one or two outstanding early-career law professors whose work is relevant to public policy and has the potential to influence improvements in the law."

Since the midterm elections, we’ve seen a number of examples of hardball tactics. In Wisconsin, Republicans stripped power from the newly elected Governor Democrat Tony Evers. Republicans in Michigan tried a similar maneuver, but the bills were vetoed by the outgoing governor, also a Republican. But it’s not just Republicans using aggressive political tactics. Democrats in New Jersey proposed a constitutional amendment for redistricting that would essentially solidify their party’s control of the state legislature for the next decade. The idea prompted a mass backlash, notably from folks from within the same party, like the state’s Democratic Governor Phil Murphy.  In Alabama, a group of Democratic tech experts used deceptive social media tactics similar to the Russians in the 2016 presidential elections to influence the Special Senate race last year on behalf of now Senator Doug Jones, according to a report from The New York Times.  So, is all this wheeling and dealing just politics as usual or has something fundamentally changed? This hour on Politics with Amy Walter from The Takeaway, we take a look at constitutional hardball, who's playing clean, who's playing dirty, and whether or not they out to be playing at all.  Guests: David Pozen is a professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Clare Malone is a senior political writer at FiveThirtyEight. Doug Heye has held communications positions in the House, Senate, RNC, as well as serving in the George W. Bush administration. Karine Jean-Pierre is a senior adviser at Move On. Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Myrna Pérez is the Deputy Director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and leader of the Center's Voting Rights and Elections project. Amy's Final Take: Over the last few years, I’ve been thinking a lot about institutions and why and how they fail. And, I grapple with the question of whether the dismantling and disruption of our political norms and structures are just a normal, healthy but painful process of democracy. Kind of like a forest fire is good because of the way it clears dead brush and encourages new growth. Or, is what is happening today the beginning of a descent into a dark and dangerous place where rules and guardrails no longer guide us. In talking with the guests for this show - and others who are thinking a lot about these things - I am cautiously optimistic. The most dangerous threat to our political system is that people disengage from it; that it becomes so discredited that no one believes their voice or vote matters. The 2018 election showed us that voters aren’t walking away. Turnout was higher than any previous midterm election in over 100 years. And, as the Brennan Center’s Myrna Pérez noted, the path to progress isn’t always linear. And, in an era of Instagram, insta-pots and insta-news, it’s hard to remain patient when we see things moving in the wrong direction. Most fundamentally, our system is built on faith. If we lose it, we will lose everything.

On this week's episode of The Open Mind, we welcome Columbia law professor and inaugural Knight Institute Fellow David Pozen. David teaches and writes about constitutional law, national security law, and information law, among other topics.The future of American law and morality, the jurisprudence that will define America is our topic today. The High Court is reaching a potential crossroads, return to an aspirational consensus or deepen a polarizing divide. Can the court veer from a partisan legitimacy crisis to neutral constitutional arbiter? We invite David Pozen to consider this question, the bruising nomination battle confirming Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and if and how the Court can salvage democracy. For the 2017-2018 academic year, Pozen is the inaugural visiting scholar at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. From 2010 to 2012, Pozen served as special advisor to Harold Hongju Koh at the Department of State. Previously, Pozen was a law clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Merrick B. Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and a special assistant to Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a special event at Columbia University, David Pozen of Columbia and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of Georgetown University discuss how to restore the separation of powers. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Special thanks to Zach Morrison and the Columbia chapters of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society for their partnership in producing this event.

In a special event at Columbia University, David Pozen of Columbia and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of Georgetown University discuss how to restore the separation of powers. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Special thanks to Zach Morrison and the Columbia chapters of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society for their partnership in producing this event.

Is originalism required by our law? We chat with Charles Barzun about his critique of the inclusive originalists, the new movement to claim that an originalist interpretive method is not only a good choice among possible methods but is the method which is mandated by a positivist approach to our law. This show’s links: Charles Barzun’s faculty profile and writing Charles Barzun, The Positive U-Turn William Baude and Stephen Sachs, The Law of Interpretation William Baude, Is Originalism Our Law? Oral Argument 98: T3 Jedi (guests Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen) Scott Shapiro, Legality (Amazon and Google Books) Brown v. Board of Education; Jack Balkin and Bruce Ackerman (eds.), What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said Charles Barzun, Inside/Out: Beyond the Internal/External Distinction in Legal Scholarship Oral Argument 77: Jackasses Are People Too (guest Adam Kolber) Special Guest: Charles Barzun.

In honor of our base 10 number system, we revert to type and have recorded a long, self-indulgent episode. We reflect on our show, respond to feedback, and wonder about law and legal academia. Also Joe’s travels and nonsense. Feedback includes the other side of the expedite problem, a morality quiz for Joe, the proper playback speed for this show, political processes in arrest and indictment, professionalism norms and racism, SSRN’s purchase by Elsevier, more on the Bluebook and its connection with the problems of legal knowledge creation, and what our jobs are and whether we should keep doing this show. This show’s links: Christian Turner, Podcasts Oral Argument 0: Who Is Your Hero? Flyover Country Oral Argument 96: Students as Means Alvin Roth, Who Gets What - And Why Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS; Klor’s v. Broadway-Hale Stores Oral Argument 99: Power (guest Lisa Heinzerling); Richard Posner, The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia On the bar exam: Oral Argument 61: Minimum Competence (guest Derek Muller); Oral Argument 62: Viewer Mail; Virginia Bar, Mandatory Dress Code Oral Argument 98: T3 Jedi (guests Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen) Michael Jensen's announcement of the sale of SSRN to Elsevier John Dupuis, Elsevier Buys SSRN: Another Sideshow or the Main Event? Paul Gowder, SSRN Has Been Captured by the Enemy of Open Knowledge Zenodo About arXiv Oral Argument 91: Baby Blue (guest Chris Sprigman) Oral Argument 12: Heart of Darkness

Like living things, legal theories are born, grow, change, and die. We are joined by Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen to discuss this life cycle and how it applies to some popular theories today, like originalism. We start by discussing what prescriptive legal theories are and how there was a move to transcend politics through process-based theories (3:23). Then: the theory of theories (9:31), the example of Brown v. Board, originalism, and brute political facts (20:17), a sociological story (25:10), the role of law schools and teaching in theory evolution (31:22), a discussion of trees, structure, and the role of higher order principles in law (37:50), theory change in private law (47:14), normative vs. descriptive theories of theories (54:05), and the internal and external approaches to originalism (1:04:27). This show’s links: Jeremy Kessler’s faculty profile and writing David Pozen’s faculty profile and writing Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen, Working Themselves Impure: A Life-Cycle Theory of Legal Theories Oral Argument 97: Bonus Lawrence Solum, Kessler and Pozen on the Development of Normative Legal Theories Lawrence Solum, Legal Theory Lexicon: It Takes a Theory to Beat a Theory Daniel Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy:Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928 About Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism Javins v. First National Realty Corp. Jeffrey Gordon, The Empty Call for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Financial Regulation Guido Calabresi and Philip Bobbitt, Tragic Choices Open Science Collaboration, Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science S.J. Gould and R.C. Lewontin, The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme Lawrence Solum, Legal Theory Lexicon: Originalism and Legal Theory Lexicon: The New Originalism (each containing links and citations to many of the key works) Stephen Smith, Saving Originalism from Originalists An example of Larry Solum’s April Fools jokes Special Guests: David Pozen and Jeremy Kessler.