Podcasts about georgia state university college

Welcome to RIMScast. Your host is Justin Smulison, Business Content Manager at RIMS, the Risk and Insurance Management Society.   In this episode, Justin interviews Katherine Henry of Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, and Harold (Hal) Weston of Georgia State University, Greenberg School of Risk Science, who are here to discuss their new professional report, “A 2025 Cybersecurity Legal Safe Harbor Overview.” Katherine and Hal take the discussion beyond the pages and delve into best cybersecurity practices, cyber insurance, and Safe Harbor laws offered by some states and possibly to be offered soon by others. They discuss frameworks and standards, and what compliance means for your organization, partly based on your state law.   Listen for advice to help you be prepared against cybercrime.   Key Takeaways: [:01] About RIMS and RIMScast. [:16] About this episode of RIMScast. We will be joined by the authors of the legislative review, “A 2025 Cybersecurity Legal Safe Harbor Overview”, Katherine Henry and Harold Weston. Katherine and Harold are also prominent members of the RIMS Public Policy Committee. [:48] Katherine and Harold are also here to talk about Cybersecurity Awareness Month and safe practices. But first…  [:53] RIMS-CRMP Prep Workshops! The next RIMS-CRMP Prep Workshops will be held on October 29th and 30th and led by John Button. [1:05] The next RIMS-CRMP-FED Virtual Workshop will be held on November 11th and 12th and led by Joseph Mayo. Links to these courses can be found through the Certifications page of RIMS.org and through this episode's show notes. [1:23] RIMS Virtual Workshops! RIMS has launched a new course, “Intro to ERM for Senior Leaders.” It will be held again on November 4th and 5th and will be led by Elise Farnham. [1:37] On November 11th and 12th, Chris Hansen will lead “Fundamentals of Insurance”. It features everything you've always wanted to know about insurance but were afraid to ask. Fear not; ask Chris Hansen! RIMS members always enjoy deep discounts on the virtual workshops! [1:56] The full schedule of virtual workshops can be found on the RIMS.org/education and RIMS.org/education/online-learning pages. A link is also in this episode's notes. [2:08] Several RIMS Webinars are being hosted this Fall. On October 16th, Zurich returns to deliver “Jury Dynamics: How Juries Shape Today's Legal Landscape”. On October 30th, Swiss Re will present “Parametric Insurance: Providing Financial Certainty in Uncertain Times”. [2:28] On November 6th, HUB will present “Geopolitical Whiplash — Building Resilient Global Risk Programs in an Unstable World”. Register at RIMS.org/Webinars. [2:40] Before we get on with the show, I wanted to let you know that this episode was recorded in the first week of October. That means we are amid a Federal Government shutdown. RIMS has produced a special report on “Key Considerations Regarding U.S. Government Shutdown.” [2:58] This is an apolitical problem. It is available in the Risk Knowledge section of RIMS.org, and a link is in this episode's show notes. Visit RIMS.org/Advocacy for more updates. [3:12] Remember to save March 18th and 19th on your calendars for the RIMS Legislative Summit 2026, which will be held in Washington, D.C. I will continue to keep you informed about that critical event. [3:24] On with the show! It's National Cybersecurity Awareness Month here in the U.S. and in many places around the world. Cyber continues to be a top risk among organizations of all sizes in the public and private sectors. [3:40] That is why I'm delighted that Katherine Henry and Harold (Hal) Weston are here to discuss their new professional report, “A 2025 Cybersecurity Legal Safe Harbor Overview”. [3:52] This report provides a general overview of expected cybersecurity measures that organizations must take to satisfy legal Safe Harbor requirements. [4:01] It summarizes state Safe Harbor laws that have been developed to ensure organizations are proactive about cybersecurity and that digital, financial, and intellectual assets are legally protected when that inevitable cyber attack occurs. [4:15] We are here to extend the dialogue. Let's get started! [4:21] Interview! Katherine Henry and Hal Weston, welcome to RIMScast! [4:41] Katherine was one of he first guests on RIMScast. Katherine is Chair of the Policyholder Insurance Coverage Practice at Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings. Her office is based in Washington, D.C. She works with risk managers all day on insurance issues. [5:05] Katherine has been a member of the RIMS Public Policy Committee for several years. She serves as an advisor to the Committee. [5:12] Justin thanks Katherine for her contributions to RIMS. [5:25] Hal is with Georgia State University. He has been with RIMS for a couple of decades. Hal says he and Katherine have served together on the RIMS Public Policy Committee for maybe 10 years. [5:48] Hal is a professor at Georgia State University, a Clinical Associate in the Robinson College of Business, Greenberg School of Risk Science, where he teaches risk management and insurance. Before his current role, Hal was an insurance lawyer, both regulatory and coverage. [6:05] Hal has a lot of students. He is grading exams this week. He has standards for his class. In the real world, so does a business. [6:46] Katherine and Hal met through the RIMS Public Policy Committee. They started together on some subcommittees. Now they see each other at the annual meeting and on monthly calls. [7:05] Katherine and Hal just released a legislative review during RIMS's 75th anniversary, “A 2025 Cybersecurity Legal Safe Harbor Overview”. It is available on the Risk Knowledge page of RIMS.org. [7:20] We're going to get a little bit of dialogue that extends beyond the pages. [7:31] Katherine explains Safe Harbor: When parties are potentially liable to third parties for claims, certain states have instilled Safe Harbor Laws that say, If you comply with these requirements, we'll provide you some liability protection. [7:45] Katherine recommends that you read the paper to see what the laws are in your state. The purpose of the paper is to describe some of those Safe Harbor laws, as well as all the risks. [8:04] October 14th, the date this episode is released, is World Standards Day. Hal calls that good news. Justin says the report has a correlation with the standards in the risk field. [8:43] Justin states that many states tie Safe Harbor eligibility to frameworks like NIST, the ISO/IEC 27000, and CIS Controls. [9:27] Hal says, There are several standards, and it would be up to the Chief Information Security Officer to guide a company on which framework might be most appropriate for them. There are the NIST, UL, and ISO, and they overlap quite a bit. [9:56] These are recognized standards. In some states, if a company has met this standard of cybersecurity, a lawsuit against the company for breach of its standard of care for maintaining its information systems would probably be defensible for having met a recognized standard. [10:23] Katherine adds that as risk managers, we can't make the decision about which of these external standards is the best. Many organizations have a Cybersecurity Officer responsible for this. [10:44] For smaller organizations, there are other options, including outsourcing to a vendor. Their insurance companies may have recommendations. So you're not on your own in making this decision. [11:14] Katherine says firms should definitely aim for one recognized standard. Katherine recommends you try to adhere to the highest standard. If you are global, you need to be conscious of standards in other countries. [11:46] Hal says California tends to have the highest standards for privacy and data protection. If you're a financial services company, you're subject to New York State's Department of Financial Services Cyber Regulation. [12:02] If you're operating in Europe, GDPR is going to be the guiding standard for what you should do. Hal agrees with Katherine: Any company that spans multiple states should pick the highest standard and stick to that, rather than try to implement five or 52 standards. [12:23] When you're overseas, you may not be able to just pick the highest standard; there are challenges in going from one country or region of Europe back to the U.S. If one is higher, it will probably be easier. [12:38] There are major differences between the U.S., which has little Federal protection, vs. state protection. [13:10] Katherine says if you don't have the internal infrastructure, and you can't afford that infrastructure, the best thing is to pivot to an outside vendor. There are many available, with a broad price range. Your cyber insurer may also have some vendors they already work with. [13:40] Hal would add, Don't just think about Safe Harbors. That's just a legal defense. Think about how you reduce the risk by adopting standards or hiring outside firms that will provide that kind of risk protection and IT management. [13:59] If they're doing it right, they may tell you the standards they use, and they may have additional protocols, whether or not they fall within those standards, that would also be desirable. A mid-sized firm is probably outsourcing it to begin with. [14:21] They have to be thinking about it as risk, rather than just Safe Harbor. You have to navigate to the Safe Harbor. You don't just get there. [14:31] Quick Break! RISKWORLD 2026 will be in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from May 3rd through the 6th. RIMS members can now lock in the 2025 rate for a full conference pass to RISKWORLD 2026 when you register by October 30th! [14:50] This also lets you enjoy earlier access to the RISKWORLD hotel block. Register by October 30th, and you will also be entered to win a $500 raffle! Do not miss out on this chance to plan and score some of these extra perks! [15:03] The members-only registration link is in this episode's show notes. If you are not yet a member, this is the time to join us! Visit RIMS.org/Membership and build your network with us here at RIMS! [15:16] The RIMS Legislative Summit 2026 is mentioned during today's episode. Be sure to mark your calendar for March 18th and 19th in Washington, D.C. Keep those dates open. [15:28] Join us in Washington, D.C., for two days of Congressional Meetings, networking, and advocating on behalf of the risk management community. Visit RIMS.org/Advocacy for more information and updates.  [15:41] Let's return to our interview with Katherine Henry and Hal Weston! [15:54] We're talking about their new paper, “A 2025 Cybersecurity Legal Safe Harbor Overview”. Katherine mentions that some businesses are regulated. They have to comply with external regulatory standards. [16:38] Other small brick-and-mortar businesses may not have any standards they have to comply with. They look for what to do to protect themselves from cyber risk, and how to tell others they are doing that. [16:54] If you can meet the standards of Safe Harbor laws, a lot of which are preventative, before a breach, you can inform your customers, “These are the protections we have for your data.” You can tell your board, “These are the steps we're taking in place.” [17:13] You can look down the requirements of the Safe Harbor law in your state or a comparable state, and see steps you can take in advance so you can say, “We are doing these things and that makes our system safer for you and protects your data.” [17:34] Hal says you don't want to have a breach, and if you do, it would be embarrassing to admit you were late applying a patch, implementing multi-factor authentication, or another security measure. By following standards of better cyber protection, you avoid those exposures. [18:07] Hal says every company has either been hacked and knows it, or has been hacked and doesn't know it. If you're attacked by a nation-state that is non-preventable, you're in good shape. [18:26] If you're attacked because you've left some ports open on your system, or other things that are usually caught in cybersecurity analyses or assessments, that's the embarrassing part. You don't want to be in that position. [18:43] Katherine says it's not just your own systems, but if you rely on vendors, you want to ensure that the vendors have the proper security systems in place so that your data, to the extent that it's transmitted to them, is not at risk. [19:07] Also, make sure that your vendors have cyber insurance and that you're an additional insured on that vendor's policy if there's any potential exposure. [19:22] Hal says If you're using a cloud provider, do you understand what the cloud provider is doing? In most cases, they will provide better security than what you could do on your own, but there have been news stories that even some of those have not been perfect. [20:22] Hal talks about the importance of encryption. It's in the state statutes and regulations. There have been news stories of companies that didn't encrypt their data on their servers or in the cloud, and didn't understand encryption, when a data breach was revealed. [20:52] Hal places multi-factor authentication up with encryption in importance. There was a case brought against a company that did not have MFA, even though it said on its application on the cyber policy that the company used it. [21:13] Hal says these are standard, basic things that no company should be missing. If you don't know that your data is encrypted, get help fast to figure that out. [21:51] Hal has also seen news stories of major companies where the Chief Technology Officer has been sued individually, either by the SEC or others, for not doing it right. [22:07] Katherine mentions there are insurance implications. If you mistakenly state you're providing some sort of protection on your insurance application that you're not providing, the insurer can rescind your coverage, so you have no coverage in place at all. [22:23] Katherine says, These are technical safeguards, but we know the human factor is one of the greatest risks in cybersecurity. Having training for everyone who has access to your computer system, virtually everyone in your organization, is very important. [22:49] Have a test with questions like, Is this a spam email or a real email? There are some vendors who can do all this for you. Statistics show that the human element is one of the most significant problems in cybersecurity protection. [23:05] Justin says it's October, Cybersecurity Awareness Month in the U.S. Last week's guest, Gwenn Cujdik, the Incident Response and Cyber Services Lead for North America at AXA XL, said the number one cyber risk is human error, like clicking the phishing link.  [23:45] Justin brings up that when he was recently on vacation, he got an email on his personal email account, “from his CEO,” asking him to handle something for them. Justin texted somebody else at RIMS, asking if they got the same email, and they hadn't. [24:14] Justin sent the suspect email to the IT director to handle. You have to be vigilant. Don't let your guard down for a second. [24:48] Katherine has received fake emails, as well. [24:51] Hal says it has happened to so many people. Messages about gift cards or the vendor having a new bank account. Call the vendor that you know and ask what this is. [25:12] Hall continues. It's important to train employees in cybersecurity, making sure that they are using a VPN when they are outside of the office, or even a VPN that's specific to your company. [25:32] Hal saw in the news recently that innocent-looking PDF files can harbor lots of malware. If you're not expecting a PDF file from somebody, don't click on that, even if you know them. Get verification. Start a new thread with the person who sent it and ask if it is a legitimate PDF. [26:08] Justin says of cybercriminals that they are smart and their tactics evolve faster than legislation. How can organizations anticipate the next generation of threats? [26:34] Katherine says, You need to have an infrastructure in your organization that does that, or you need to go to an outside vendor. You need some sort of protection, internally or externally. [27:11] Katherine says she works with CFOs all the time. If an organization isn't large enough to have a risk manager, it's a natural fit for the CFO, who handles finances, to handle insurance. When it comes to cybersecurity, a CFO needs help. [27:46] The CFO should check the cyber policy to see what support services are already there and see if there are any that are preventative, vs. after a breach. If there are not, Katherine suggests pivoting to an outside vendor. [28:07] Hal continues, This interview is for RIMS members who are risk managers and the global risk community. Risk managers don't claim to know all the risk control measures throughout a company. They rely upon the experts in the company and outside. [28:29] If the CFO is the risk manager, he or she has big gaps in expertise needed for risk management. It's the same for the General Counsel running risk management. Risk managers are known for having small staffs and working with everybody else to get the right answers. [28:55] If you're dealing with the CFO or General Counsel in those roles, they need to be even more mindful to work with the right experts for guidance. [29:09] One Final Break! As many of you know, the RIMS ERM Conference 2025 will be held on November 17th and 18th in Seattle, Washington. We recently had ERM Conference Keynote Speaker Dan Chuparkoff on the show. [29:26] He is back, just to deliver a quick message about what you can expect from his keynote on “AI and the Future of Risk.” Dan, welcome back to RIMScast! [29:37] Dan says, Greetings, RIMS members and the global risk community! I'm Dan Chuparkoff, AI expert and the CEO of Reinvention Labs. I'm delighted to be your opening keynote on November 17th at the RIMS ERM Conference 2025 in Seattle, Washington. [29:52] Artificial Intelligence is fueling the next era of work, productivity, and innovation. There are challenges in navigating anything new. This is especially true for risk management, as enterprises adapt to shifting global policies, economic swings, and a new generation of talent. [30:10] We'll have a realistic discussion about the challenges of preparing for the future of AI. To learn more about my keynote, “AI and the Future of Risk Management,”  and how AI will impact Enterprise Risk Management for you, listen to my episode of RIMScast at RIMS.org/Dan. [30:29] Be sure to register for the RIMS ERM Conference 2025, in Seattle, Washington, on November 17th and 18th, by visiting the Events page on RIMS.org. I look forward to seeing you all there. [30:40] Justin thanks Dan and looks forward to seeing him again on November 17th and hearing all about the future of AI and risk management! [30:48] Let's Conclude Our Interview about Navigating Cyber and IT Practices to Legal Safe Harbors with Katherine Henry and Hal Weston! [31:17] Katherine tells about how Safe Harbor compliance influences cyber insurance. If your organization applies for cyber insurance and you can't meet some minimum threshold that will be identified on the application, the insurer will not even offer you cyber insurance. [31:34] You need to have some cyber protections in place. That's just to procure insurance. Cyber insurance availability is growing. Your broker can bring you more insurers to quote if you can show robust safeguards. [32:05] After the breach, your insurer is supposed to step in to help you. Your insurer will be mindful of whether or not your policy application is correct and that you have all these protections in place. [32:21] The more protections you have, the quicker you might be able to shut down the breach, and the resulting damage from the breach, and that will lower the resulting cost of the claim and have less of an impact on future premiums. [32:36] If the cyber insurer just had to pay out the limits because something wasn't in place, that quote next year is not going to look so pretty. Your protections have a direct impact on both the availability and cost of coverage. [32:50] Justin mentions that the paper highlights Connecticut, Tennessee, Iowa, Ohio, Utah, and Oregon as the states with Safe Harbor laws. The Federal requirements are also listed. Katherine expects that more states will offer Safe Harbor laws as cybercrime lawsuits increase. [33:42] Hal says Oregon, Ohio, and Utah were the leaders in creating Safe Harbors. Some of the other states have followed. Safe Harbor is a statutory protection against liability claims brought by the public. [34:06] In other states, you can't point to a statute that gives protection, but you can say you complied with the highest standards in the nation, and you probably have a pretty defensible case against a claim for not having kept up with your duty to protect against a cyber attack. [34:55] Hal adds that every company is going to be sued, and the claim is that you failed to do something. If you have protected yourself with all the known best practices, as they evolve, what more is a company supposed to do? [35:18] The adversaries are nation-states; they are professional criminals, sometimes operating under the protection of nation-states, and they're using artificial intelligence to craft even more devious ways to get in. [36:19] Katherine speaks from a historical perspective. A decade ago, cyber insurance was available, but there was no appetite for it. There wasn't an understanding of the risk. [36:32] As breaches began to happen and to multiply, in large amounts of exposure, with companies looking at millions of dollars in claims, interest grew. Katherine would be surprised today if any responsible board didn't take cyber risk extremely seriously. [36:55] The board's decision now is what limits to purchase and from whom, and not, “Should we have cyber insurance at all?” Katherine doesn't think it's an issue anymore in any medium-sized company. [37:17] The risk manager should present to the board, “We benchmark. Our broker benchmarks. Companies of our size have had this type of claim, with this type of exposure, and they've purchased this amount of limits. We need to be at least in that place.” Boards will be receptive. [37:43] If they are not receptive, put on a PowerPoint with all the data that's out there about how bad the situation is. The average cost of a breach is well over $2 million. The statistics are quite alarming. A wise decision-maker will understand that you need to procure this coverage. [38:10] Katherine says, from the cybersecurity side, you procure the coverage, you protect the company, and take advantage of the Safe Harbors. All of those things come together with the preventative measures we've been talking about. [38:24] You can show your decision-makers and stakeholders that if you do all those things, comply with these Safe Harbor provisions, you're going to minimize your exposure, increase the availability of insurance, and keep your premiums down. It's a win-win package. [38:41] Justin says, It has been such a pleasure to meet you, Hal, and thank you for joining us. Katherine, it is an annual pleasure to see you. We're going to see you, most likely, at the RIM Legislative Summit, March 18th and 19th, 2026, in Washington, D.C. [39:01] Details to come, at RIMS.org/Advocacy. Katherine, you'll be there to answer questions. Katherine looks forward to the Summit. She has gone there for years. It's a great opportunity for risk managers to speak directly to decision-makers about things that are important to them. [39:42] Special thanks again to Katherine Henry and Hal Weston for joining us here today on RIMScast! Remember to download the new RIMS Legislative Review, “A 2025 Cybersecurity Legal Safe Harbor Overview”. [39:58] We are past the 30-day mark now, so the review is publicly available through the Risk Knowledge Page of RIMS.org. You can also visit RIMS.org/Advocacy for more information. In this episode's notes, I've got links to Katherine's prior RIMScast appearances. [40:18] Plug Time! You can sponsor a RIMScast episode for this, our weekly show, or a dedicated episode. Links to sponsored episodes are in the show notes. [40:47] RIMScast has a global audience of risk and insurance professionals, legal professionals, students, business leaders, C-Suite executives, and more. Let's collaborate and help you reach them! Contact pd@rims.org for more information. [41:05] Become a RIMS member and get access to the tools, thought leadership, and network you need to succeed. Visit RIMS.org/membership or email membershipdept@RIMS.org for more information. [41:22] Risk Knowledge is the RIMS searchable content library that provides relevant information for today's risk professionals. Materials include RIMS executive reports, survey findings, contributed articles, industry research, benchmarking data, and more. [41:39] For the best reporting on the profession of risk management, read Risk Management Magazine at RMMagazine.com. It is written and published by the best minds in risk management. [41:53] Justin Smulison is the Business Content Manager at RIMS. Please remember to subscribe to RIMScast on your favorite podcasting app. You can email us at Content@RIMS.org. [42:05] Practice good risk management, stay safe, and thank you again for your continuous support!   Links: RIMS Professional Report: “A 2025 Cybersecurity Legal Safe Harbor Overview” RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy | RIMS Legislative Summit SAVE THE DATE — March 18‒19, 2026 RIMS ERM Conference 2025 — Nov. 17‒18 RISKWORLD 2026 — Members-only early registration through Oct 30! RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) The Strategic and Enterprise Risk Center RIMS Diversity Equity Inclusion Council RIMS Risk Management magazine | Contribute RIMS Now Cybersecurity Awareness Month World Standards Day — Oct 14, 2025 Upcoming RIMS Webinars: RIMS.org/Webinars “Jury Dynamics: How Juries Shape Today's Legal Landscape” | Oct. 16, 2025 | Sponsored by Zurich “Parametric Insurance: Providing Financial Certainty in Uncertain Times” | Oct. 30, 2025 | Sponsored by Swiss Re “Geopolitical Whiplash — Building Resilient Global Risk Programs in an Unstable World” | Nov. 6 | Sponsored by Hub   Upcoming RIMS-CRMP Prep Virtual Workshops: RIMS-CRMP Virtual Exam Prep — Oct. 29‒30, 2025 RIMS-CRMP-FED Exam Prep Virtual Workshop — November 11‒12 Full RIMS-CRMP Prep Course Schedule “Risk Appetite Management” | Oct 22‒23 | Instructor: Ken Baker “Intro to ERM for Senior Leaders” | Nov. 4‒5 | Instructor: Elise Farnham “Fundamentals of Insurance” | Nov. 11‒12 | Instructor: Chris Hansen “Leveraging Data and Analytics for Continuous Risk Management (Part I)” | Dec 4. See the full calendar of RIMS Virtual Workshops RIMS-CRMP Prep Workshops   Related RIMScast Episodes about Cyber and with Katherine Henry: “National Cybersecurity Awareness Month 2025 with Gwenn Cujdik” “AI Risks and Compliance with Chris Maguire” “Data Privacy and Protection with CISA Chief Privacy Officer James Burd” “Cyberrisk Trends in 2025 with Tod Eberle of Shadowserver” “Legal and Risk Trends with Kathrine Henry (2023)”   Sponsored RIMScast Episodes: “The New Reality of Risk Engineering: From Code Compliance to Resilience” | Sponsored by AXA XL (New!) “Change Management: AI's Role in Loss Control and Property Insurance” | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company Demystifying Multinational Fronting Insurance Programs | Sponsored by Zurich “Understanding Third-Party Litigation Funding” | Sponsored by Zurich “What Risk Managers Can Learn From School Shootings” | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog “Simplifying the Challenges of OSHA Recordkeeping” | Sponsored by Medcor “Risk Management in a Changing World: A Deep Dive into AXA's 2024 Future Risks Report” | Sponsored by AXA XL “How Insurance Builds Resilience Against An Active Assailant Attack” | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog “Third-Party and Cyber Risk Management Tips” | Sponsored by Alliant “RMIS Innovation with Archer” | Sponsored by Archer “Navigating Commercial Property Risks with Captives” | Sponsored by Zurich “Breaking Down Silos: AXA XL's New Approach to Casualty Insurance” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Weathering Today's Property Claims Management Challenges” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Storm Prep 2024: The Growing Impact of Convective Storms and Hail” | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company “Partnering Against Cyberrisk” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Harnessing the Power of Data and Analytics for Effective Risk Management” | Sponsored by Marsh “Accident Prevention — The Winning Formula For Construction and Insurance” | Sponsored by Otoos “Platinum Protection: Underwriting and Risk Engineering's Role in Protecting Commercial Properties” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Elevating RMIS — The Archer Way” | Sponsored by Archer   RIMS Publications, Content, and Links: RIMS Membership — Whether you are a new member or need to transition, be a part of the global risk management community! RIMS Virtual Workshops On-Demand Webinars RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS Strategic & Enterprise Risk Center RIMS-CRMP Stories — Featuring RIMS President Kristen Peed!   RIMS Events, Education, and Services: RIMS Risk Maturity Model®   Sponsor RIMScast: Contact sales@rims.org or pd@rims.org for more information.   Want to Learn More? Keep up with the podcast on RIMS.org, and listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.   Have a question or suggestion? Email: Content@rims.org.   Join the Conversation! Follow @RIMSorg on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.   About our guests: Katherine Henry, Partner and Chair of the Policyholder Coverage Practice, Bradley, Arant, Boult, and Cummings   Harold Weston, Clinical Associate Professor and WSIA Distinguished Chair in Risk Management and Insurance, Georgia State University College of Law Production and engineering provided by Podfly.  

After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.Featuring:Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteMichael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity FoundationEric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

The Supreme Court term was limited in its blockbusters this year, but the decision to limit the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions will have the biggest impact, attorneys and legal scholars say. “It affects how cases get litigated in a big way,” said Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian public interest law firm. "I saw someone say 'We're all class action attorneys now, right?' because that's all we've got." Boden joins “Cases and Controversies,” along with Georgia State University College of Law professor Eric Segall to discuss the recent term, its rulings, and the justices that stood out the most. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also talk about the court's recent emergency order that allows President Donald Trump to move forward with plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In this episode of See You In Court, hosts Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate sit down with one of Georgia's most dynamic legal voices—Attorney Joyce Gist Lewis. From her early days in theater to becoming co-managing partner of one of the largest women-owned law firms on the East Coast, Joyce shares her inspiring story, her landmark legal battles, and her unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

Police in Court, when they broke no laws. The reasons why. In an era where politics often collides with justice, law enforcement officers are increasingly finding themselves in court, prosecuted not for misconduct, but for doing their jobs. Despite well-established legal precedents like Graham v. Connor, some State's Attorneys and Chief Prosecutors, many of whom are elected political figures, continue to push criminal charges against police officers who have broken no laws. The episode is also promoted across their Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , Medium and other platforms. “These prosecutions aren't always about justice, they're often about politics,” says Lance LoRusso, a police officer turned attorney, widely known as “The Blue Line Lawyer.” LoRusso has spent over three decades in public safety, first as an EMT and police officer, and now as a nationally recognized advocate and defender of law enforcement officers. This episode of The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast now streaming on for free on their website, in addition to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and most major social podcast platforms. The 1989 Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor set the standard for evaluating claims of excessive force by police, focusing on "objective reasonableness." The ruling emphasized that police use of force must be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable officer on the scene, not through the lens of 20/20 hindsight. Yet that critical distinction is often disregarded when officers are put on trial. Police in Court, when they broke no laws. The reasons why. Look for supporting stories about this and much more from Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast in platforms like Medium , Blogspot and Linkedin . “Prosecutors should be guided by facts and the law, not by appearances or political pressure,” LoRusso asserts. He has represented over 175 first responders in critical incidents, including officer-involved shootings. “Too many prosecutions ignore clear-cut evidence that the officer acted lawfully, within department training, and responded appropriately to an immediate threat.” Courts and prosecutors are supposed to weigh key factors like the severity of the offense, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether they were resisting or fleeing. But when the public cries out and the cameras roll, these facts are often pushed aside. The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast episode is available for free on their website , Apple Podcasts , Spotify and most major podcast platforms. And the cost is enormous. “Millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on these prosecutions,” LoRusso explains. “When officers are acquitted, and many are, they still suffer mentally, financially, and professionally. Their families suffer too.” Police in Court, when they broke no laws. The reasons why. Available for free on their website and streaming on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other podcast platforms. According to The Washington Post, police officers who are charged with murder or manslaughter while on duty are only convicted about 50% of the time. That statistic raises a sobering question: Why are so many police being prosecuted in the first place? LoRusso believes he knows the answer. “In at least half of these cases, prosecutors either knew, or should have known, that the officers did nothing wrong. They pursued these charges anyway, for reasons that had more to do with public optics and political ambitions than legal merit.” LoRusso, who holds degrees from Emory, Kennesaw State, and Georgia State University College of Law, is licensed to practice in Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. He collaborates with legal teams across the U.S., defending law enforcement officers in politically motivated prosecutions. In 2021, he was named Attorney of the Year by the National Fraternal Order of Police. You can listen to his stories and interview on our website for free in addition to platforms like Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and other major podcast platforms. Beyond his legal work, LoRusso is also an author. His fiction novels bring to life authentic police stories with characters pulled from the heart of law enforcement. His non-fiction books are resources for officers facing legal scrutiny, and all proceeds go to first responder charities. His books and insights can be found on platforms like Apple, Spotify, and Amazon. Police in Court, when they broke no laws. The reasons why. He also leads training conferences for attorneys and law enforcement professionals. One central theme: how to manage the critical hours after an officer-involved shooting. “What happens in the first few hours can shape the entire case. That's where most mistakes are made, not by the officer, but by the system that should be protecting them,” says LoRusso. The interview with Lance is promoted on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and other Law Enforcement Talk Radio and Podcast social platforms. The forums by Lance are aimed at educating professionals on best practices in investigating and defending the use of force. The full podcast episode is streaming now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and across Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. LoRusso emphasizes, “Behind every badge is a person who made a split-second decision. They shouldn't be judged by a news cycle or a political campaign.” In today's media-driven, politically charged environment, it's easier than ever for prosecutors to bring a police officer to court. But the real challenge, and the true measure of justice lies in asking whether they should. To learn more about Lance LoRusso's work, his books, or to hear directly from him, visit his interview in the podcast version of the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast available for free on their website, also free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other major platforms. His voice stands strong in the ongoing battle between politics and justice, between courtroom drama and constitutional rights. Police in Court, when they broke no laws. The reasons why. Listen to his full interview on the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast website for free, also on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or most major podcast platforms. Read more stories, insights, and legal analysis from Lance LoRusso in his books. You can find details announced on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and across other social media platforms. You can help contribute money to make the Gunrunner Movie . The film that Hollywood won't touch. It is about a now Retired Police Officer that was shot 6 times while investigating Gunrunning. He died 3 times during Medical treatment and was resuscitated. You can join the fight by giving a monetary “gift” to help ensure the making of his film at agunrunnerfilm.com . Your golden years are supposed to be easy and worry free, at least in regards to finances. If you are over 70, you can turn your life insurance policy into cash. Visit LetSavings.com , LetSavings.com or call (866) 480-4252, (866) 480-4252, again that's (866) 480 4252 to see if you qualify. Learn useful tips and strategies to increase your Facebook Success with John Jay Wiley. Both free and paid content are available on this Patreon page . Time is running out to secure the Medicare coverage you deserve! Whether you're enrolling for the first time or looking for a better plan, our experts help you compare options to get more benefits, lower costs, and keep your doctors, all for free! Visit LetHealthy.com , that's LetHealthy.com or call (866) 427-1225, (866) 427-1222 to learn more. Be sure to follow us on MeWe , X , Instagram , Facebook, Pinterest, Linkedin and other social media platforms for the latest episodes and news. Background song Hurricane is used with permission from the band Dark Horse Flyer. You can contact John J. “Jay” Wiley by email at Jay@letradio.com , or learn more about him on their website . Get the latest news articles, without all the bias and spin, from the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast on Medium , which is free. Find a wide variety of great podcasts online at The Podcast Zone Facebook Page , look for the one with the bright green logo. Be sure to check out our website . Police in Court, when they broke no laws. The reasons why. Attributions Justia.com Blue Line Lawyer Washington Post Lance LoRusso Books      

What exactly an emolument? Is the airplane gift from Qatar to President Trump an emolument? Is it evidence of corruption? And has the Supreme Court continued to enable corruption? Hosted by Doug Becker. [ dur: 26mins. ] Clark D. Cunningham is Lee Byrd's Chair in Law and Ethics at Georgia State University College of Law. … Continue reading Scholars' Circle – Emolument Clause & Trump Qatar gifts ; The harm of microplastics – May 25, 2025 →

After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.Featuring:Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteMichael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity FoundationEric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC--To register, click the link above.

February 6, 2025 Everything Co-op inaugurates its Black History Month series. The theme for the 2025 Black History Month, as designated by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH), is "African Americans and Labor." This theme emphasizes the significant and varied ways in which different forms of labor—both free and unfree, skilled and unskilled, vocational and voluntary—intersect with the collective experiences of Black people. Vernon begins his of African Americans and Labor in a discussion with Julian Hill, an abolitionist and lawyer who specializes in the solidarity economy. Julian Hill is an assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law. Hill is a teacher, lifelong learner, community organizer, artist, and attorney who knows that the world we deserve, though both possible and necessary, is not inevitable. Hill regularly advises worker cooperatives, collectives, nonprofits, and small businesses on a range of matters, including governance, contracts, regulatory compliance, and corporate law matters. Hill is also known to partner with community-based organizations to co-facilitate political education and co-develop policies and campaigns. They have facilitated workshops, both in English and Spanish, on worker cooperatives and the solidarity economy with Law 4 Black Lives, the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Democracy at Work Institute, the New York City Network of Worker Cooperatives, and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, among others. They have prepared and delivered testimony before both the New York State Assembly and the New York City Council on issues facing worker cooperatives and small businesses in New York City. Hill is licensed to practice law in Georgia, New York and Washington, D.C.

MDJ Script/ Top Stories for October 22nd Publish Date:  October 22nd    Commercial: From the BG AD Group Studio, Welcome to the Marietta Daily Journal Podcast.  Today is Tuesday, October 22nd and Happy Birthday to actor Christopher Lloyd. ***10.22.24 – BIRTHDAY – CHRISTOPHER LLLOYD*** I'm Dan Radcliffe and here are the stories Cobb is talking about, presented by Credit Union of Georgia.  1.       Second Week of Advance Voting Underway in Cobb 2.       HarvestFest Celebrates Autumn in Marietta Square 3.       Cobb Eyes Transit Program for KSU Students   Plus, Cobb's election director Tate Fall recent speech the Kiwanis Club. All of this and more is coming up on the Marietta Daily Journal Podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen and subscribe!    BREAK: CU of GA (06.26.24 CU OF GA FREE CHECKING_REV_FINAL) STORY 1:  Second Week of Advance Voting Underway in Cobb In Cobb County, early voting is in full swing with over 118,900 voters participating since it began. After a busy first week, turnout steadied with 14,067 voting on Saturday and 4,181 on Sunday. Wait times on Monday ranged from 20 minutes to an hour at popular locations. Voters like Barry Whitener and Cindy Jones cited the economy and the need for change as key motivators. Others, like Vish Ganapathy, emphasized the importance of voting early to avoid issues. Early voting continues until November 1, with 12 polling stations open daily. STORY 2:     HarvestFest Celebrates Autumn in Marietta Square Marietta Square was bustling with activity during the annual HarvestFest, attracting thousands for a day of fall-themed fun. The event featured a touch-a-truck experience with the Marietta fire and police departments, allowing kids to explore vehicles and equipment. Officer Aaron Wright highlighted the importance of community connection. The festival also included an arts market, pie-eating contests, and a scarecrow competition. Percy Hardy and Enrique Figueroa won the children's and adult pie-eating contests, respectively. The day wrapped up with a costume contest for kids, adding to the festive atmosphere. STORY 3:  Cobb Eyes Transit Program for KSU Students Cobb County is considering a partnership with Kennesaw State University to enhance student access to CobbLinc buses. The proposed pilot program, up for a vote by the Board of Commissioners, would allow KSU students to ride three specific CobbLinc routes for free with a valid student ID, with KSU reimbursing the county $2 per trip, up to $100,000 annually. The program, running from January 1 to December 30, 2025, aims to improve student mobility beyond campus. Commissioner JoAnn Birrell highlighted the benefit of expanded access to areas like Marietta and downtown.     We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.799.6810 for more info.    We'll be right back    Break: DRAKE (Drake Realty (Cobb County) STORY 4:  Local Named 2024 Justice John Paul Stevens Public Interest Fellow Jiovanny Dominguez from Powder Springs, a student at Georgia State University College of Law, has been named a 2024 Justice John Paul Stevens Public Interest Fellow. This fellowship, honoring the late Justice Stevens, supports over 150 law students nationwide in public interest law. Dominguez, along with fellow Georgia State students Aaliyah Knight and Aimee Lyons, received a stipend from the Stevens Foundation to support their unpaid public interest law internships this summer, reflecting a commitment to a robust justice system. STORY 5:  Georgia man arrested in attack on Capitol Cylester Maxwell, a 42-year-old from Alpharetta, Georgia, was arrested for his involvement in the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. He faces felony charges for assaulting law enforcement with a dangerous weapon and civil disorder, along with misdemeanors for entering restricted grounds and engaging in violence. Court records show Maxwell was seen in video footage participating in the riot, including using a "TRUMP" sign as a battering ram against police. The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office are handling the investigation and prosecution. We'll be back in a moment    Break: Ingles Markets (Roasting Vegetables) 7 ***Interview – Tate Fall*** Break: Marietta Theatre (06.10.24 MARIETTA THEATRE MARGARITAVILLE_FINAL)   Signoff-   Thanks again for hanging out with us on today's Marietta Daily Journal Podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, or the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties. Read more about all our stories and get other great content at www.mdjonline.com/ Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network   Show Sponsors: ●        www.ingles-markets.com  ●        www.cuofga.org  ●        www.drakerealty.com ●        www.mariettatheatresquare.com   #NewsPodcast #CurrentEvents #TopHeadlines #BreakingNews #PodcastDiscussion #PodcastNews #InDepthAnalysis #NewsAnalysis #PodcastTrending #WorldNews #LocalNews #GlobalNews #PodcastInsights #NewsBrief #PodcastUpdate #NewsRoundup #WeeklyNews #DailyNews #PodcastInterviews #HotTopics #PodcastOpinions #InvestigativeJournalism #BehindTheHeadlines #PodcastMedia #NewsStories #PodcastReports #JournalismMatters #PodcastPerspectives #NewsCommentary #PodcastListeners #NewsPodcastCommunity #NewsSource #PodcastCuration #WorldAffairs #PodcastUpdates #AudioNews #PodcastJournalism #EmergingStories #NewsFlash #PodcastConversationsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. 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

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forces. Today's guest has written a book that bridges that divide.  In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development (U California Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis uses methods from history, law, and political science to theorize and document how politics make American constitutional law and how the courts affect the path of partisan politics. Understanding American constitutional law means looking at the relationship among dominant political coalitions, social movements, and the evolution of constitutional law as prescribed by judges. For Kreis, constitutional doctrine does not exist in a philosophical vacuum – it is a “distillation of partisan politics.” Rejecting the idea that the Constitution's significance and interpretation can be divorced from contemporary political realities, Kreis uses tools from law, history, and American political development to explain how American constitutional law reflects the ideological commitments of dominant political coalitions, the consequences of major public policy choices, and the influences of intervening social movements. For Kreis, constitutional law is “best understood through the diachronic lens of American Political Development (APD) and the concept of political time. Kreis concludes that the courts have never been—and cannot be—institutions lying outside the currents of national politics. Dr. Anthony Michael Kreis is assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law where he teaches constitutional law and works at the intersection of law and American Political Development. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Washington & Lee University, respectively, and his PhD from the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Mentioned: President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 15, 1965 speech before Congress on voting rights Keith E. Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy and other works Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Correction: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by President Obama and Justice Jackson was nominated by President Biden. 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

July 4, 2024 Vernon interviews Julian Hill, an abolitionist and lawyer specializing in the solidarity economy. Vernon and Julian explore key insights from Julian's experience working with cooperatives, collectives, nonprofits, and small businesses. Julian Hill is an assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law. Hill is a teacher, lifelong learner, community organizer, artist, and attorney who knows that the world we deserve, though both possible and necessary, is not inevitable. Hill regularly advises worker cooperatives, collectives, nonprofits, and small businesses on a range of matters, including governance, contracts, regulatory compliance, and corporate law matters. Hill is also known to partner with community-based organizations to co-facilitate political education and co-develop policies and campaigns. They have facilitated workshops, both in English and Spanish, on worker cooperatives and the solidarity economy with Law 4 Black Lives, the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Democracy at Work Institute, the New York City Network of Worker Cooperatives, and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, among others. They have prepared and delivered testimony before both the New York State Assembly and the New York City Council on issues facing worker cooperatives and small businesses in New York City. Hill is licensed to practice law in Georgia, New York and Washington, D.C.

Today on the Tech Policy Grind: Our editor, Evan, bids the show farewell for his new role in corporate privacy compliance. He chats with Pedro Pavon, a privacy attorney at Meta, about what it means to be an advocate on the corporate side, how birding can help us maintain a beginners mindset, and how Pedro launched the Data Protection Breakfast Club. Pedro is a lawyer and policy advocate focused on digital privacy, data strategy, and algorithmic fairness. He hosts the Data Protection Breakfast Club podcast and teaches privacy law at Georgia State University College of Law.

Today we're joined by Kris Niedringhaus of Georgia State University College of Law. Kris has a few roles at the law school: associate dean for Library, Information Services, Legal Tech & Innovation; faculty director of the Legal Analytics & Innovation Initiative; and clinical professor of law. For over two decades, she has been a law librarian and law professor at universities throughout the US. She has also been with the Center for Computer Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) for more than 20 years in various roles, currently serving as an author, board member, and chair of the Legal Research Community Authoring Project advisory board. She is an executive committee member of the Association of American Law Schools' Section on Technology, Law, and Legal Education. Additionally, Kris has written and presented on topics such as legal research, teaching methods, and law library management. In our discussion, Kris talks about the Legal Analytics & Innovation Initiative, how law students should approach legal technology, finding her place in the legal world, and why she enjoys student hackathons.

Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, discusses a possible TikTok ban. Alan Levin, Bloomberg aviation safety reporter, discusses Boeing's problems. Ryan Rowberry, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses an unprecedented federal water rights claim to protect the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, discusses a possible TikTok ban. Alan Levin, Bloomberg aviation safety reporter, discusses Boeing's problems. Ryan Rowberry, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses an unprecedented federal water rights claim to protect the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's another episode of “Trump's Trials and Tribulations,” this one recorded on December 21 in front of a live audience on YouTube and Zoom. This week, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower and special guest Anthony Michael Kreis from the Georgia State University College of Law.They talked about the 11th Circuit's denial of Mark Meadows's removal request in Fulton County, about why the order may have worrisome secondary effects, and of course, about that decision from the Colorado Supreme Court blocking Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot. This is a live conversation that happens online every Thursday at 4:00pm Eastern Time. If you would like to come join and ask a question, be sure to visit Lawfare's Patreon account and become a Material Supporter.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, we talk about IEPs and civil rights compliance with Martin Chen.A little about Martin Chen:B.A. - Vanderbilt UniversityJ.D. - Georgia State University College of Law30+ years with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil RightsHis position ensured that recipients of federal financial assistance from the Education Department complied with civil rights laws which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, and equal access to the Boy Scouts of America.Resident of Metropolitan Atlanta since 1976. Attended Dekalb County Public Schools.

Tommy talks with Anjali Deshmukh, Pediatrician and Assistant Professor of Law at the Georgia State University College of Law

The PFAS family of man-made compounds are found in countless consumer products, as well as medical devices and firefighting foam. The incredibly strong carbon-fluorine bond that make PFAS so useful also makes them incredibly persistent. They are so ubiquitous that PFAS can be found in the blood of every human on earth and rainwater throughout the world. In this episode we are going to give you some history of the compounds, discuss some important differences, review what litigation we're seeing (including the various claims and defenses), note what we can learn from recent settlement structures, forecast the impact of any new regulation, and predict what litigation might be next. My guests have been at the forefront of PFAS litigation since they began defending carpet manufacturers in suits brought by two Alabama municipalities in 2017. They are: David J. Marmins, a partner with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP in Atlanta, Georgia. He is part of the firm's litigation and real estate practices and co-chair of the firm's retail industry team. David has concentrated his practice on complex civil litigation since becoming a lawyer in the last century. He earned his JD from Georgia State University College of Law. Morgan E. M. Harrison, partner, in AGG's litigation and dispute resolution and employment practices. She is also a member of the payments systems and fintech, and background-screening industry teams. Morgan has a JD from Vanderbilt University Law School. BONUS! Read David and Morgan's article on the subject, just published in the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Dr. Stephanie Holmes and Martin Chen answer your questions on Autism! A. What if I want or think my child needs an IEP or 504- they have a diagnosis but I keep getting turned down?B. What if my school won't take my IEE?C. When we have an IEP and it isn't being followed, what is my legal recourse?D. I've heard if school can't help my child I can get credits for a private school?Martin Chen received his BA from Vanderbilt University and his JD from Georgia State University College of Law. He has 30+ years with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rightsensured that recipients of federal financial assistance from the Education Department complied with civil rights laws which prohibited discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, and equal access to the Boy Scouts of America. He resides in the Metropolitan Atlanta area and has since 1976. He attended Dekalb County Public Schools.

This week Historians At The Movies dives into one of the sharpest historical films of the 1980s- Dirty Dancing. No, we're not kidding either. Guests Leah Lagrone, Lauren MacIvor Thompson, and Lauren Lassabe Shepherd tackle the memory of the 60s from the 80s, young love, issues of labor and class, dancing, AIDS, the Reagan era, abortion, whether or not Baby and Johnny are still together, and of course, that soundtrack. Prepare for the time of your lives.About our guests:Dr. Leah LaGrone is an assistant professor of history and public history director. She graduated from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, with a PhD in history focused on borderlands, labor, and gender studies in early 20th century. Her research examines state legislation and the discourse on minimum wages for women, specifically the connections of sex work with low wages. Her current book project, “A Woman's Worth: How Race and Respectability Politics Influenced Minimum Wage Policies,” demonstrates that the politics around race and the minimum wage for women drove conversations among labor, politicians, and progressive reformers about the future of white supremacy in Texas. She has contributed an essay to the anthology "Impeached: The Removal of Texas Governor James E. Ferguson" as well as articles to The Washington Post and NursingClio. She has worked on several public history projects, including "The Civil War Documentary," "Civil Rights in Black and Brown," and the Texas State Historical Association's "Handbook of Texas Women." Dr. LaGrone will teach the public history classes and supervise the public history internships.Lauren MacIvor Thompson (Ph.D. '16) is a historian of early-twentieth-century women's rights and public health. She serves as the faculty research fellow at the Georgia State University College of Law's Center for Law, Health & Society. She is also part of the faculty at Kennesaw State University as a jointly-appointed Assistant Professor of History and Interdisciplinary Studies. Thompson's current research focuses on the intersections of medical authority and expertise, women's health, and public health policy in the birth control and reproductive health movements. She is working on a book manuscript, Battle for Birth Control: Mary Dennett, Margaret Sanger, and the Rivalry That Shaped a Movement, forthcoming with Rutgers University Press. She has published numerous articles and op-eds including work in Law and History Review, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Her research has been supported by fellowships from the American Philosophical Society, the New York Academy of Medicine, and the Society for the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, among others. Thompson is also a frequent public speaker including presentations at the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, the American Society for Legal History, and the American Association for the History of Medicine, as well as national and international symposiums on suffrage and legal rights, reproduction, health, and medicine. She is a member of the national Scholars Strategy Network.Dr. Lauren Lassabe Shepherd's expertise is in the history of United States higher education from the 20th century to present, especially on the topic of conservatism in the academy. She is an instructor in the Department of Education and Human Development at the University of New Orleans and an IUPUI-Society for US Intellectual History Community Scholar.Shepherd's first book, Resistance from the Right: Conservatives and the Campus Wars, is out now from the University of North Carolina Press. Her second book manuscript is a historical survey of colleges and universities in the United States since the 1960s.

Welcome to episode 197 of the Grow Your Law Firm podcast, hosted by Ken Hardison. In this episode, Ken sits down with Michael Moebes, founding attorney at Moebes Law, to discuss how Michael has mastered referral partnerships. Michael Moebes, Esq. is the eponymous founding attorney at Moebes Law, LLC: a law practice dedicated to representing injured individuals. Specifically, Moebes Law specializes in workers' compensation, veterans disability, and personal injury claims. Has an accident ruined your life? You should probably give Michael Moebes a call. Michael began his professional career as a client representative with IBM before resigning to attend law school at Georgia State University in Atlanta. He spent three years representing employers and insurers at the insurance defense law firm of Drew, Eckl & Farnham in midtown Atlanta before joining the legal team at Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for two years. These five years taught him how insurers evaluate injury claims in terms of validity and financial exposure in addition to teaching him about the nuances of practicing injury law throughout the great state of Georgia. In 2009, Michael started Moebes Law, LLC and has passionately represented the injured ever since. In fact, he has recovered millions of dollars and won countless medical procedures in the course of his representation of injured workers and veterans since starting his firm. He is active in the National Organization for Veterans Advocates, the Workers Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and numerous local and national bar organizations. He's a registered neutral by the Georgia Supreme Court as well. Michael has been named a “Rising Star” (before he was over 40) and then a “Super Lawyer” by the Georgia “Super Lawyers” organization multiple times, an honor given to 2.5% of attorneys in their practice field as voted upon by their peers. He has also been named among the “Legal Elite” by GeorgiaTrend magazine. He has lectured at the Georgia Trial Lawyers annual convention, the “Fundamentals of Law Practice” course at Georgia State University College of Law, and the “National Return to Work Week” radio show. In 2013, he was interviewed for the companion guide of “Solo By Choice,” a guide to starting one's own law firm. When not practicing law, Lieutenant Colonel Moebes served as a Medical Service Corps officer with the U.S. Air Force Reserves for 23 years before retiring in 2020. He deployed three times in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom: twice to Balad Air Base, Iraq and once to Andrews AFB, Maryland. In the course of his decorated military service, he facilitated the aeromedical evacuation of thousands of wounded warriors, and he participated in the Jessica Lynch rescue mission in 2003. He was featured in cover story articles in the Daily Report newspaper after both Iraqi deployments. The three-part “Iraq Diary” article published in October 2003 won national recognition. When not serving his country or his clients, Michael enjoys traveling, writing, and time with his three young children, wife, and dog of questionable lineage. He and his family are active members at Buckhead Church and support several local charities, including Wellspring Living, the Sandy Springs Conservancy, and the Anti-Defamation League; he was selected to the Glass Leadership Institute for the ADL. He serves as Treasurer of the Board for Act 3 Theater in Sandy Springs and Secretary for the Sandy Springs Bar Association. He was chosen for Leadership Sandy Springs in 2013 (becoming an LSS Ambassador in 2014).     What you'll learn about in this episode: Discover Michael's journey to becoming a Lawyer Learn the importance of referral partnerships Tips for building your own referral relationships How Summits and CLE events can help you grow your network What it means to have Reciprocal Referrals The importance of following up after a case settles   Resources:  https://moelaw.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/callcolonelmoe/ https://www.facebook.com/CallColonelMoe/ https://twitter.com/CallColonelMoe https://www.tiktok.com/@callcolonelmoe https://www.instagram.com/callcolonelmoe/   Additional Resources:  https://www.pilmma.org/the-mastermind-effect https://www.pilmma.org/resources https://www.pilmma.org/mastermind

Our special guest is Mark Budnitz, Professor Emeritus, Georgia State University College of Law. In an article recently published in the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, Prof. Budnitz explores the impact on low-income consumers of the increasing use of digital technology for consumer payments. Prof. Budnitz first explains why, in his view, the current laws governing digital financial services, particularly the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Reg. E, do not adequately protect low-income consumers. We then discuss the benefits of various methods he believes could provide protection for low-income consumers using payment systems, such as agency enforcement of existing laws, amendments to existing laws, and enactment of new laws, as well as the limitations of those methods. We also discuss the use of government-run consumer financial services to help low-income consumers, such as the recently-launched FedNow instant payments system, proposed legislation to allow the U.S. Postal Service to offer banking services, and a proposal for the Federal Reserve to issue a central bank digital currency. We conclude with a discussion of Prof. Budnitz's recommendations for how agencies can better address the needs of low-income consumers when considering new initiatives. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation.

Pedro Pavón is the Global Director of Monetization, Privacy, and Fairness at Meta, the tech company behind Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads. In addition to providing legal counsel and advocating for data privacy, data protection, fairness, and algorithmic transparency, Pedro leads a team of lawyers and policy professionals. Beyond his responsibilities at Meta, Pedro teaches privacy and information security law at the Georgia State University College of Law. Pedro is a thought leader and writer on privacy and data security issues related to AI, Metaverse, digital advertising, blockchain, and IoT. In this episode… In December 2022, Meta (formerly Facebook) settled a $725 million lawsuit alleging that the company gave third parties access to users' private data without permission. Meta is now attempting to become a data privacy leader, so what safeguards have they implemented? Privacy professional Pedro Pavón explains Meta is making tremendous efforts to improve data protection and user transparency. Besides empowering the legal team with the authority to negate atrocious ideas with the potential to harm users, Meta now equips individuals with more control and transparency regarding their data. Meta is also launching new technology, such as the AI chatbot. To shield data, the security team enables security by design protection and transparent communication on how AI systems use people's data. Data privacy transparency is crucial because it helps build trust between consumers and businesses. It lets customers understand how their data is collected, used, and shared. This enables them to make informed decisions about their privacy and security. In this episode of the She Said Privacy/He Said Security Podcast with Jodi and Justin Daniels, Pedro Pavón, Global Director of Monetization, Privacy, and Fairness at Meta, discusses how the company is improving data privacy. Pedro shares the role privacy and data protection play in the new Meta AI chatbot, why privacy should be more transparent, and ways AI can improve privacy.

ABI Editor-at-Large Bill Rochelle discusses the Supreme Court's opinion in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin with Prof. Jack F. Williams of Georgia State University College of Law (Atlanta) and Thomas Salerno of Stinson LLP (Phoenix). The Court held that the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes.

Anthony Michael Kreis, a Professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses how the man who led the years-long legal actions against affirmative action in colleges, is now targeting affirmative action in the corporate world. Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter, discusses why the court will be getting off to a slow start next term. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ILTA sits down with an array of SMEs from universities, law firms, and our partners, to talk technical competency rule ABA 1.1 and how technology has evolved and changed the way new lawyers and students learn and thus, practice. Keep up with ILTA and guests as we unpack the ever-changing world of learning and what competency means to them.   Episode 6 features Michelle Hook Dewey, Legal Technologies Librarian and Associate Professor Legal Technologies Librarian and Associate Professor, Georgia State University College of Law

ILTA sits down with an array of SMEs from universities, law firms, and our partners, to talk technical competency rule ABA 1.1 and how technology has evolved and changed the way new lawyers and students learn and thus, practice. Keep up with ILTA and guests as we unpack the ever-changing world of learning and what competency means to them.   Episode 3 features Kristina L. Niedringhaus, Assoc. Dean for Law Library, Information Services, Legal Technology & Innovation, Georgia State University College of Law

When I was growing up, people didn't fret much about food safety. Trichinosis from undercooked pork was about all I heard about. But today people hear about much more: norovirus, salmonella, campylobacter, staphylococcus, listeria, and there's much more. So what in the world is happening? Our guest, Timothy Lytton, distinguished university professor and professor of law at Georgia State University knows an awful lot about this. He's the author of a seminal book entitled "Outbreak: Foodborne Illness and the Struggle for Food Safety." Interview Summary When your book came out, I was so excited to see it, because there was so much talk out there in the general world about food safety, but to have somebody with a kind of your legal background take this on and put it all into a single volume, I thought was extremely helpful. So let me begin with a basic question. So how did you get interested in food safety and why do a book on it? You know, our political world is largely characterized by an ongoing debate about people who favor government regulation against people who favor letting free markets run their own course. I found this debate somewhat unsatisfying. I'm really interested in a lot of ways that government activities and market activities interact. In fact, in most contexts we have not really two alternatives, one between government regulation and the other free markets. But instead, we have a complex interaction between public and private efforts to try and govern health and safety problems. This really is characteristic of what I would call complex regulatory systems. They involve at least kind of what you might think of as three legs of a stool. On the one hand, you have government regulation, you have private governance, supply chain management, and other things that companies do to protect health and safety. You have liability, lawsuits and liability insurance. These three legs of the stool really are interactive and they together comprise what I would call a complex regulatory system. And food safety's really a great example of this and I think it was for me an important way to try and illustrate to people that our regulatory world is a lot more complex than the choice between government regulation and free markets.   There are a lot of places where business and government interests are at odds and government needs to keep a watchdog eye on business and make sure that they behave in ways that are consistent with the public good. You would think that government and business interests would align, that it's not in a business' interest have an unsafe food product that goes out there because all kinds of bad publicity and litigation and things like that can happen. So is it not true that there's alignment of goals?   I think there's alignment of goals. I think it's also fair to say that sometimes there's a difference of opinion as to just how aggressive or ambitious food safety regulation ought to be. On the one hand, industry tends to be a little bit more cautious. They may be worried about costs for food safety advances that may be unproven and government may be very nervous about making sure that consumers are properly protected they may be a bit more aggressive. I think one thing that is important to keep in mind is that even though there are those tensions, there's a very powerful interdependence between the efforts of government regulators to try and advance food safety and the efforts of private industry supply chain managers. In fact, a lot of the standards that grow out of the system are standards that have come out of collaboration between them. So for example, standards for agricultural water quality that help reduce the microbial contamination of water that is used to irrigate crops. Those originated in technical committees that were put together by industry associations, but those technical committees included members who came from government regulatory agencies. By the same token, when government came around trying to develop guidance and regulations to govern agricultural water quality, they called on industry in the notice and comment period. So the same group of experts have been really working over the course of the last two and a half decades on water quality standards. They've been doing it in different institutional venues, sometimes in industry technical committees and sometimes in the government's notice and comment process and sometimes in informal ways at conferences where they also meet and merge with academics. But, there's an enormous amount of collaboration that comes out of this ongoing conversation that is occurring in these different institutional venues.   Thanks for that background. I'd like to ask you about the system's approach to food safety that you proposed. But before we do that I'd like to ask kind of a broader question about where we stand with food safety in the US. So the industry is quick to claim that US has the safest food supply in the world. Is that really true? And how big of a problem is food safety in America?   You know, it really depends on how you measure it. The CDC estimates that each year from foodborne illness there are 3000 deaths, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 48 million cases of acute gastroenteritis. That really means serious enough illness to include diarrhea or vomiting or nausea that would be strong enough to keep a person out of work for a day or away from school. Now when you think about it in terms of deaths, that is 3,000 people a year who die from foodborne illness or foodborne-related illness. That's much less than something like tobacco which is close to half a million, or obesity which is closer to quarter million, or auto accidents which is about 34,000. In that context, the number of deaths from foodborne illness is relatively low as public health problems go. On the other hand, if you think about the 48 million episodes of acute gastroenteritis each year, people being sick enough to really have to knock off a day of work and in some cases getting much sicker than that, that's an enormous number. That is one out of six Americans every year. That is far more than the number of Americans who are injured in falls, car accidents, cutting, cycling, poisoning, and fire burn injuries all put together. It is orders of magnitude larger than those other things. So in that sense foodborne illness is a significant public health problem. And since we dedicate resources to things like falls in the home or car accident injuries, we probably should also be paying attention to food safety.   As you think about trends and look at the drivers of food safety, the way farming is done in the US, the way food is transported and those sort of issues, are you expecting that the challenges will become even more serious as time goes on, or are these being reined in?   I think that things are moving in two different directions one of which is difficult for food safety and one of which is advantageous. On the difficult side: the industrialization of food; the mass production; the large and growing global markets; and the increasingly complex supply chains where we're getting a lot of our produce from around the world This makes the problem much more difficult because there is just a farther reach that regulations would have to get to in order to help protect consumers from the risk of contamination. Also the ability to track and trace back the root causes of contamination just becomes more difficult as the food system becomes increasingly global. On the other hand, there are a number of important advances in technology. In particular, advances in technology that relate to surveillance and tracing. The ability to actually isolate and create a DNA fingerprint for different pathogens that are harvested from people who are sick or are harvested from investigations where contamination might occur, and that allow public health authorities to actually discover and spot outbreaks as they occur more frequently. And also increasing sophistication in tracing them back to their root causes. That growing technology, that ability to spot and trace back the source of foodborne illness, I think, is probably something that is getting better and better over time.   That's good news to hear and fascinating description of this. So you talk about a system's approach to food safety. What do you mean by that?   When we think about food safety, what we want to do is realize that instead of just pushing on one of these legs of the stool - more government regulation or for less government regulation, greater industry vigilance or less industry vigilance, greater liability or increasing liability insurance for growers or other food producers - we need to think about how these things are interrelated. We need to think about how we can help them complement each other. So for example, it may be the case that what we want to do is relieve the government of its burden, to some degree, of inspection because the government just doesn't have their inspection resources, it needs to cover all of the food industry and it struggles to do so. On the other hand, retailers who sell the food actually have a global and robust system of third party audits and that is driven by economic incentives and it has a much farther reach than government. We might find ways to rely more on that and government can then shift its resources away from things like inspection, which is really doesn't have the resources to do comprehensively and spend more of its money on surveillance of foodborne illness, so we can spot outbreaks when they occur, as well as tracing investigations to figure out what are the root causes of those outbreaks. That requires a governmental infrastructure at the federal, state, and local level and on some levels increasingly at the global level, that really only government can put together and overlook and oversee and develop. And so these are ways in which we can think in a system's approach, that instead of just looking for government to do everything or industry to do everything we can sort of divide the different types of tasks that are required, to create a robust food safety system and look at the ways in which these different branches of the system can complement each other.   Let's look beyond our own borders and talk about how other countries address these issues. How does the US measure up to what other countries are doing?   We don't really know the answer to that question, we don't really know how well the US is actually doing. It's extremely difficult to figure out whether or not any particular regulation or intervention works. In fact, that's really the story of a lot of different regulatory areas, food is not different in this way. We spend an enormous amount of money on developing and implementing regulations, but very little money in trying to figure out how effective they have been or whether they've been efficient or whether there are better ways to do them. Those questions are very difficult to answer and they are enormously expensive. As a result, we don't really know how well the US food safety system is doing. That becomes a similar problem when we look at places like Germany or England or Japan to figure out, well, how well are they doing? It's pretty hard to measure that as well. So there's not even something to compare here. I think a lot of people have general impressions about whether food is safer in one country or another and this will depend on the sector. Food safety in meat is different than fluid milk and it's different than fresh produce or poultry. I think it's a difficult question to answer and I think you hear a lot of opinions about this, but most of those opinions are not really, I don't think, grounded very clearly in the kinds of careful measures we would need to have in order to have good reliable answer to that question.   I'd like to underscore something you just said that it's hard to know whether the food safety regulations that we have actually work. So why is that the case and what do you think are some of the greatest challenges facing the food safety system today?   It's just a very curious thing. When I was doing my research, I would ask people how well is your system working and they couldn't tell me. If you ask someone in industry, we put in a million dollars into marketing, what do we get for it? They will be able to come back to you in a year and tell you for the million dollars you put into marketing, in the budget, we got X number of sales. We can do the same thing with quality control. We give you a million dollars, what did we get for it? A year later they'll come back and say, "Well we had X number of fewer defective products." But when you ask a company executive we give you a million dollars for food safety last year, what do we get for it? They can't really tell you. They give you some vague story about how they have improved the culture around food safety and institution. The same is true with government officials. When I ask people at the USDA, you know how well are your food safety inspections going? Have they improved the quality of American food safety? They really couldn't even begin to answer that question. One of the top officials at USDA told me, "Gee, I'd really love to know the answer to that question." I think there are a couple reasons why. One is it's very hard to measure how much illness there is, of the estimates of 48 million episodes, that's really, you know, a projection based on statistics. Of those 48 million episodes only 800 involve identified outbreaks. So, we only have 800 that we actually are counting. Of those, there are only about 300 identifiable food vehicles and of those, there are only about three to four cases where we can trace back to the root causes. So, we don't even know where the foodborne illness is coming from, even if we have a rough estimate of how much there is. It's also hard to know what caused the illness because we don't have root cause analysis or it's very rare. We don't know whether or not a particular intervention fell short or really made the difference. It's very difficult to figure out what the different levels of illness connected with a particular food are. We can make a food safety change but we don't have any way to measure on the public health side whether or not illness has been reduced as a result of that. When illness rates go up or down, we don't really have a way of tracing that back to where the failure's occurring in the system. We can't connect particular interventions to improve food safety with particular public health outcomes in terms of reducing illness.   You know, it's amazing how complicated this is, because when you're a consumer and you go to the store, you go to a restaurant and you buy something, you just assume it's going to be safe. And there are a whole bunch of people that are paying attention to that and making sure that that is so, but it's way more complicated than that. So interesting to hear you lay that out. So let's talk about what you think effective reforms would be. I'd like to ask about one thing in particular, in this context, where some people have called for reorganizing federal food safety regulation under a single federal agency which kind of makes sense instinctually, wouldn't it make sense instead of having destroyed the things going on, that all take place under one umbrella? I know you have some reservations about that. Could you explain?   Sure, I'll just start with this idea of a single food safety agency. This is a proposal that has been put forward in every single presidential administration, Democratic and Republicans, since the Truman Administration. It's basically the idea that if we can rearrange the bureaucratic structure of food safety, we can reap efficiencies and do a better job. I think there are a number of reasons to be skeptical of this particular approach to fixing the food safety system. First of all, there's very widespread lack of support from Congressional oversight committees. Congressional oversight committees and industry are basically connected with particular agencies. There are about 15 federal agencies currently that deal with food safety and each one has its own oversight committee in Congress. If you were to consolidate that, you would reduce the power of each of those congressional representatives to actually serve the interests of their constituents. It would make it harder for industry to sort of exercise influence in government. As a result, there's really not much support in Congress for this sort of consolidation. Second, it would require a massive and complex statutory overhaul. The food safety laws of this country go back to the late 19th century. They're involved in many difficult and complex and large statutory laws and they all are put together in a complex system. And I can't imagine the Congress getting involved in that level or scale of a statutory overhaul what it would take to consolidate this all in one agency. Furthermore, the agencies have different expertise and culture. So USDA is populated largely by people who do animal veterinary science and they look at beef production and poultry production. FDA's populated by microbiologists and they look at a lot of things related to water quality and safety and food production. These are just different technical skills and so reorganization would be very difficult. And finally, I would say that there's no evidence from other countries that have done this and a number of countries have done this, that they have reaped any public health benefits from this. We do know it would cost an enormous amount of money at the front end, but we don't have any indication that it would actually save us any money or be more effective at the back end. I think we would do a better job, rather than consolidating and rearranging the bureaucracy, to do a better job of knitting it together and creating cooperative task forces and more interaction between agencies. There's actually a lot of this already. There are joint task courses that have membership from USDA and FDA and the CDC and the other agencies involved. And I think that that growing coordination is probably a better approach to the food safety system than trying to consolidate. When we move away from that, I think there are probably three things I would focus on in terms of advances that would be good reforms for us. The first is to focus more government investment on outbreak investigation, to put more money into the CDC's surveillance systems for foodborne illness and the inter-agency cooperation that goes into investigating outbreaks. We need more information in order to know whether what we're doing is working and one way to generate that is better surveillance at the public health side and better investigation. Second thing I would do is I would rely more on private resources for oversight of that system. That is to rely more on private auditors and on liability insurance and the liability system to try and put pressure in order to have food producers more compliant with food safety regulations as opposed to spending a lot of government money on what's really become quite an inadequate inspection system. And the last thing I would stress is that we want to look for opportunities for feedback and learning. We want to be more experimental in the way that we think about food safety, try something out and then build into that a way to evaluate whether we think it works and whether or not we think it's an efficient way to go about advancing food safety in that way. Only if we generate more information, we'll be able to do things that we have greater confidence are safeguarding consumers as opposed to what we're doing now, which is largely just shooting in the dark.   Those things make a great deal of sense. So let me close by asking you kind of a broad summary question. You're really on top of this, of course, as you see trends like in public opinion on these issues, on actions that are being taken by the administrative and legislative branches of government, what industry is doing, is there a reason to be hopeful that things are moving in a good direction?   I think there are two sources of hope at least. One is that we are seeing steady technological advances in the ability to fingerprint DNA of foodborne pathogens. Those technological advances are sort of moving along and as they move along, they are spinning off better ways to spot foodborne illness outbreaks when they occur, more effective and efficient ways to investigate the root causes of it. And they are also creating new ways of thinking about how we can intervene in food production to try and create opportunities to reduce microbial contamination after it occurs or before it occurs. So technological events I think is a great source of hope. There are really a lot of very smart minds working very hard in a number of fields to try and improve food safety. The second thing I think that's a source of hope is the maturation of liability insurance. This is not something that most people think about very much. But when you think about big public health problems of the last century - things like urban fires in the 19th century and things like car accidents in the 20th century - liability insurance became a major driver for safety reforms in those two areas. Liability insurers basically collect premiums to ensure when those accidents happen and then they try and figure out ways not to have to pay out when the accidents happen on the insurance policies. So they get into the safety business. Many of our safety features associated, for example, with fire safety measures in our houses, in public buildings, as well as the type of things that our cars have in terms of safety equipment are driven by the liability industry trying to look for ways to reduce risks so that they cannot have to pay out when there are accidents. I think those types of markets are emerging in food safety. Increasingly we see food safety liability insurers getting into the business of trying to help companies figure out how to comply with the state-of-the-art in food safety.   Bio   Timothy D. Lytton is Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law and currently serves as Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at Georgia State University College of Law. He teaches courses in torts, administrative law, and legislation. His research focuses on tort litigation and the regulation of health and safety. Lytton is the author of several books, including Outbreak: Foodborne Illness and the Struggle for Food Safety (University of Chicago Press 2019), which was a finalist for the 2020 ABA Silver Gavel Award, Kosher: Private Regulation in the Age of Industrial Food (Harvard University Press 2013), Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Clergy Sexual Abuse (Harvard University Press 2008), and the editor of Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts (University of Michigan Press 2005). Lytton has B.A. and J.D. degrees from Yale University. He is licensed to practice law in New York, Ohio, and Georgia, and in 2018 was elected to membership in the American Law Institute.

Please join us for a LIVE Q&A with the hosts of the All Things Co-op podcast on Friday, January 27! Learn more and RSVP: https://www.democracyatwork.info/ask_live_all_things_co_op In this episode of All Things Co-op, Kevin talks to movement lawyer and Clinical Law Professor Julian Hill. Julian's research and teaching focuses on how law can be used as a tool to support the solidarity economy and social movements. Kevin and Julian discuss Julian's background and how they got involved in cooperatives and the solidarity economy, what a movement lawyer is, the many contradictions of laws and lawyering, what the solidarity economy needs in order to grow, some resources around co-ops and movement lawyering for interested listeners to explore, and more. About our guest: Julian Hill is currently an assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law, but they're also a lifelong learner, community organizer, artist, and attorney. Julian joined Georgia State after completing a two-year fellowship as a Clinical Teaching Fellow and Supervising Attorney with the Social Enterprise and Nonprofit Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center. They have also partnered with community-based organizations to co-facilitate political education and co-develop policies and campaigns, facilitating workshops, both in English and Spanish, on worker cooperatives and the solidarity economy with Law 4 Black Lives, the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Democracy at Work Institute, and the New York City Network of Worker Cooperatives, among others. To learn more: https://law.gsu.edu/profile/julian-m-hill/ To learn more about the Solidarity Economy Graphic: https://designforsustainability.medium.com/thriving-communities-the-solidarity-economy-464ef874f51f

This week we're dipping into Ridley Scott's Thelma and Louise (1991). This is such a powerhouse film and we can use it to talk about a ton of issues related to the early '90s and all the way to today. And this movie is just awesome. So watch it as soon as you can. Currently available on Amazon Prime.About our guests:Dr. Lauren MacIvor Thompson is a historian of early-twentieth-century women's rights, medicine, law, and public health. She is an Assistant Professor of History and Interdisciplinary Studies at Kennesaw State University and serves as the faculty fellow at the Georgia State University College of Law's Center for Law, Health & Society. Her book, Rivals and Rights: Mary Dennett, Margaret Sanger, and the Making of the American Birth Control Movement is forthcoming with Rutgers University Press.Jacqueline Antonovich is a historian of health, medicine, and politics in the United States. She is an Assistant Professor in History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA, where she also directs the Shankweiler Scholars Medical Humanities Honors Program. She is currently working on a book with Rutgers University Press on women physicians and medical imperialism in the turn-of-the-century American West.Don't forget to like and subscribe and share the pod with your friends!

The panel is sponsored by our Civil Rights practice group and will focus on the issues in, and potential outcome of, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. One of the most closely anticipated cases of the coming Supreme Court term involves a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. This panel will examine the issues raised by those cases, the possible outcomes, and their likely impact on the future of higher education and beyond. Will these cases mark the end of race-as-a-factor in holistic admissions practices? If so, will universities comply with the Court’s decision, or will they evade it? And what will be the ramifications in other sectors, such as the workplace? Is a color-blind society possible in our time?Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Former Civil Rights Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryProf. Eric Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

In this episode of Repast, Michael and Diana talk with Professor Timothy Lytton, Professor of Law at Georgia State University about his new article, “Using Insurance to Regulate Food Safety: Field Notes From the Produce Sector,” published in the New Mexico Law Review.  They discuss the management of risk in food safety, gaps in food safety regulation, and the potential of the insurance industry to partially fill these gaps.  Professor Lytton also talks about his process, and what is next in his scholarship.  Timothy D. Lytton is Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Distinguished University Professor, and Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find Professor Lytton's new article here.  His other work can be found here.

For birth control advocate Mary Ware Dennett, the personal was political. After a difficult labor and delivery with her third child, a physician told Mary Ware Dennett she should not have any more children, but he told her nothing about how to prevent pregnancy. Dennett's husband began an affair with a client of his architectural firm, destroying their marriage, and Dennett devoted her work to ensuring that other couples could receive information about birth control. A 1930 federal court case against her, United States v. Dennett, opened the door to widespread distribution of birth control information in the US. Joining me in this episode is Dr. Lauren MacIvor Thompson, Assistant Professor of History at Kennesaw State University and faculty research fellow at the Georgia State University College of Law's Center for Law, Health & Society. She is writing a book called Battle for Birth Control: Mary Dennett, Margaret Sanger, and the Rivalry That Shaped a Movement, that will be published by Rutgers University Press. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The episode image is a photo of Mary Ware Dennett from the New York Journal-American Collection, Harry Ransom Center, University Of Texas. Sources: “The Sex Side of Life: An Explanation for Young People,” by Mary Ware Dennett, 1919. Available via Project Gutenberg. “Papers of Mary Ware Dennett,” Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute “The Sex Education Pamphlet That Sparked a Landmark Censorship Case,” by Sharon Spaulding, Smithsonian Magazine, September 30, 2021. “A Birth-Control Crusader,” by Marjorie Heins, The Atlantic, October 1996. “Mary Coffin Ware Dennett,” by Lakshmeeramya Malladi,Embryo Project Encyclopedia, June 22, 2016. “Unsentimental Education: Mary Ware Dennett's quest to make contraception—and knowledge about sex—available to all,” by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, The American Scholar, March 4, 2021. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bloomberg News Reporter Neil Weinberg discusses a loophole in U.S. tax law that may be helping Americans hide money from the IRS offshore.  Georgetown University Law Professor Josh Chafetz talks about Sen. Lindsey Graham's fight to avoid testifying before a Georgia grand jury and whether the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution protects his calls to the Georgia Secretary of State.  Law Professor at Georgia State University College of Law, Eric Segall discusses who could potentially challenge President Biden's student loan forgiveness package. Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr   Producer: Sara LivezeySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Interactions between healthcare, law, and policy, and public health can have huge impacts on the rural health landscape. Craig Wilson, Director of Health Policy at the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement (ACHI), tackles this complicated subject in this week's episode! “If we can't improve the health of the lives in our most rural parts of the state, then we can't do it for those in the urban parts either.” ~Craig Wilson Craig Wilson is the Director of Health Policy at the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement (ACHI). He leads efforts to achieve ACHI's access and quality goals and provides analysis of laws and policies that impact health and health care in Arkansas. His focus is on developing and sustaining initiatives to provide Arkansans with improved access to quality health care by eliminating financial, geographic, cultural, and language barriers. Craig is a graduate of Lyon College in Batesville, Arkansas. He is an attorney licensed to practice in Arkansas, having earned his Juris Doctorate from Georgia State University College of Law and a master of public administration from Georgia State University Andrew Young School of Policy Studies in Atlanta, Georgia.

Finding a healthy work-life balance in the legal profession is a challenge. Here to discuss what students and faculty must do to help cultivate this balance is law professor at Georgia State University College of Law — Jonathan Todres. Check out more of this work here and read his brand new paper "Work-Life Balance and the Need to Give Law Students a Break."   Episode produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento. A Special Thanks to Nick and Ashley Barnett for their contribution in making this podcast possible.

University of Pittsburgh Law School Assistant Professor of Law Greer Donley discusses the future of civil liberties and other consequences if Roe is repealed. Georgia State University College of Law Assistant Professor of Law Anthony Michael Kreis joins Legal Face-Off to discuss the future of LGBTQ rights if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Chicago 42nd Ward […]

All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court after a leaked draft opinion suggests a majority of the justices support overturning Roe v. Wade. A final ruling is expected in June. Tanya Washington, a professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law, discusses the implications of overturning women's right to an abortion and beyond.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears and Tanya Washington, a professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law, discuss what Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court means for the nation.Plus, a new financial literacy pilot program is underway at Georgia State University. For “Closer Look's” Paycheck to Paycheck series GSU English professor Elizabeth J. West, Oduntan Gordan with the GSMA Foundation, and Sheena, a current program participant talk about the Place and Race Program. Lastly, Frank Macchiarola, American Petroleum Institute's senior vice president of Policy, Economics, and Regulatory Affairs, discusses the current state of gas prices.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

WABE politics reporter Rahul Bali discusses the latest on House Bill 1013.Plus, Sonja R. West, the Otis Brumby Distinguished Professor in First Amendment Law at the University of Georgia School of Law, and Tanya Washington, a professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law, discuss Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's historic nomination to the Supreme Court. Author and motivational speaker Candace Doby then discusses her journaling quote book, "A Cool Girls Guide to Courage." Lastly, Rose remembers Dr. Doris Derby. The civil rights activist, documentary photographer, professor and former director of Georgia State University's Office of African American Student Services and Programs, died Tuesday at the age of 83. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses a judge temporarily stopping the Texas Governor and the state's child welfare agency from investigating the parents of a transgender teenager for child abuse for providing gender affirmative treatments. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com