The law school of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts
POPULARITY
Categories
47 episodes with Harvard Law School
17 episodes with Harvard Law School
26 episodes with Harvard Law School
14 episodes with Harvard Law School
22 episodes with Harvard Law School
19 episodes with Harvard Law School
12 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
12 episodes with Harvard Law School
11 episodes with Harvard Law School
17 episodes with Harvard Law School
9 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
23 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
14 episodes with Harvard Law School
11 episodes with Harvard Law School
10 episodes with Harvard Law School
9 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
15 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
9 episodes with Harvard Law School
10 episodes with Harvard Law School
8 episodes with Harvard Law School
8 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
8 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
8 episodes with Harvard Law School
8 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
9 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
8 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
9 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
7 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
6 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
8 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
11 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
5 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
2 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
3 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
4 episodes with Harvard Law School
David I. Sandberg, M.D., FACS, FAAP, is a fellowship-trained pediatric neurosurgeon who is the director of pediatric neurosurgery at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston He has a special clinical and research interest in pediatric brain tumors, and specializes in minimally invasive endoscopic approaches to brain tumors, hydrocephalus and arachnoid cysts, as well as surgical management of arteriovenous malformations of the brain, congenital spinal anomalies, spasticity and craniofacial anomalies. The recipient of numerous research grants, he has pioneered novel treatment approaches for pediatric brain tumors, and he is principal investigator of several clinical trials. Get his brilliant new book Brain and Heart: The Triumphs and Struggles of a Pediatric Neurosurgeon Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.
Alan Dershowitz (lawyer, author, and Professor of Law, Emeritus, Harvard Law School) joins Chris Cuomo for a tough, unvarnished look at whether America's courts can still be trusted to hold the line in a democracy under pressure. Cuomo pushes on the cases shaping Trump's legal future, the role of partisan judges, and the growing belief that the judiciary is no longer an impartial guardrail but a political weapon. They dig into the power of prosecutors, the incentives driving political lawfare, and how social media outrage has made it even harder for the public to separate fact from spin. Cuomo also challenges whether the courts can stay legitimate when every ruling is now filtered through tribal loyalty, media distortion, and a political environment where accountability itself has become partisan. Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Join Chris Ad-Free On Substack: http://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com Support our sponsors: Just visit http://ProlonLife.com/CHRISC claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift. Head to https://drinkag1.com/CCP to get a FREE Welcome Kit with an AG1 Flavor Sampler and a bottle of Vitamin D3 plus K2, when you first subscribe! That's https://drinkag1.com/CCP Get 15% off OneSkin with the code CUOMO at https://www.oneskin.co/CUOMO #oneskinpod Upgrade your wardrobe and save on @trueclassic at https://trueclassic.com/CUOMO! #trueclassicpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Keith Ferrazzi is the founder and CEO of the training and consulting company Ferrazzi Greenlight and a contributor to Inc., the Wall Street Journal, and Harvard Business Review. Earlier in his career, he was CMO of Deloitte Consulting and at Starwood Hotels and Resorts, and CEO of YaYa Media. Get a copy of his latest book Never Lead Alone: 10 Shifts from Leadership to Teamship Get a copy of his classic book Never Eat Alone, Expanded and Updated: And Other Secrets to Success, One Relationship at a Time Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.
Rana Dershowitz went straight to Harvard Law School after graduating in 1992, partly due to the economy and her love for learning. She describes her experience at Harvard Law School, including her role as a law school "old timer" in Cambridge. After law school, Rana moved back to New York and started working on Wall Street, initially hating the big law environment but appreciating the people she worked with. Entertainment Law at Madison Square Garden and onto Sports Law Rana discusses her career counselor's advice to explore sports law, which she had overlooked despite her involvement in sports and technical theater at Harvard. She took a six-month leave of absence and was offered a job in sports law the day she started her leave. Rana worked in entertainment law at Madison Square Garden (MSG) from 2001 to 2007, handling legal work for the Knicks, Rangers, and the WNBA's New York Liberty. She met her future husband during this time and moved to Colorado in 2007, where she continued her legal career. Joining the US Olympic Committee and Life in Colorado Rana joined the US Olympic Committee (USOC) as Deputy General Counsel in 2007, becoming interim General Counsel and then General Counsel and Head of Government Affairs. She describes the challenges of commuting between Colorado Springs and Denver, with her husband working in Bould, while managing her job and family life. Rana and her husband moved to Basalt, Colorado, in 2011, where she continued her legal work, joined the Aspen skiing company, and became involved in the Aspen community. She transitioned to a part-time role at Aspen Skiing Company while working as Phil Weiser's policy director for his gubernatorial campaign. Challenges and Opportunities at the US Olympic Committee Rana explains the unique structure of the USOC, which is federally chartered and subject to congressional oversight, unlike most Olympic committees. She discusses the complexities of funding and intellectual property rights, including the USOC's unique trademark rights. Rana highlights her work on safe sport initiatives and the challenges of managing independent national governing bodies for various sports. She reflects on the legal and operational complexities of hosting Olympic Games in the United States and the international dynamics involved. Working at Madison Square Garden and New York Liberty Rana shares a story that reflects her personal connection to Madison Square Garden. She describes the structure of MSG, which owns the building, the Knicks, the Rangers, and the Liberty, and her role in handling sponsorships and league rules. Rana recounts her involvement in the New York Liberty's WNBA finals run in 1999, feeling proud to be part of the team's success. She also discusses her role in managing entertainment acts during team sports events at MSG and shares a few of her proudest moments. Policy Work and Campaign for Phil Weiser Rana explains her role as Phil Weiser's policy director, focusing on active listening and building a grassroots campaign across Colorado. She outlines key issues the campaign is addressing, including affordability, climate change, water resources, and public lands. Rana emphasizes the importance of bridging urban-rural divides and finding innovative solutions that benefit the entire state. She highlights the campaign's efforts to address youth mental health and promote outdoor activities for children. Rana's Broader Role at Aspen Skiing Company Rana discusses her expanded role at Aspen Skiing Company, overseeing sustainability, community engagement, planning and development, and PR. She describes her transition to leading mountain operations and her current role that spans looking into employee housing and childcare. Rana reflects on the importance of understanding systems and structures beyond legal work, drawing on her experiences at Aspen. Harvard Reflections Rana shares her initial reluctance to follow in her family's legal footsteps but eventually being drawn to law by her interest in the "Justice" class. She credits the course for shifting her perspective and leading her to law school. She also mentions auditing the "Thinking about Thinking" class taught by Stephen Jay Gould, Robert Nozick, and Alan Dershowitz, and reflects on the importance of considering different perspectives in policy work and legal decision-making. Timestamps: 02:26: Transition to Sports Law and Madison Square Garden 05:23: Joining the US Olympic Committee and Family Life in Colorado 13:15: Challenges and Opportunities at the US Olympic Committee 20:38: Experiences at Madison Square Garden and New York Liberty 31:34: Policy Work and Campaign for Phil Weiser 40:33: Rana's Broader Role at Aspen Skiing Company 44:24: Reflections on Harvard Links: LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/rana-dershowitz/ Phil Weiser for Colorado: https://philforcolorado.com/ Aspen One: https://aspen.com/ USOPC: https://www.usopc.org/ Madison Square Gardens: https://www.msg.com/madison-square-garden Featured Non-profit: The featured non-profit of this week's episode is brought to you by Peter Kang who reports: "Hi. This is Peter Kang from the class of 1992. The featured nonprofit of this episode is the Greg Marzolf Jr. Muscular Dystrophy Center at the University of Minnesota. We provide cutting edge research and clinical care for children and adults with muscular dystrophy and other neuromuscular disorders. I have been the director of this center since 21 and it has been a privilege to see all the good work that we do to find out more. Please go to M, E, d.umn.edu/md center, or email me at p, k, a, n, g@umn.edu, thanks very much. And enjoy today's podcast." To learn more about their work, visit: https://med.umn.edu/mdcenter *AI generated show notes and transcript.
Maine overwhelmingly voted last year to end Super PACs. A federal judge blocked the ballot measure — but left a kill switch inside the ruling. Larry Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and head of the nonprofit Equal Citizens, is ready to flip that switch and take his case to the Supreme Court. In our final episode of Lever Time's MONEYBOMB series, David Sirota speaks with Lessig about the legal battle against Super PACs and why he believes that we can stop Citizens United without touching it. To read more about Larry Lessig's case against Super PACs, click here. Click here to order our new book, MASTER PLAN: The Hidden Plot to Legalize Corruption in America. Get ad-free episodes, bonus content and extended interviews by becoming a member at levernews.com/join. To leave a tip for The Lever, click here. It helps us do this kind of independent journalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David Gelles is an award-winning correspondent for the New York Times. He currently writes for the climate desk and previously wrote for the business section and was the “Corner Office” columnist. His book, The Man Who Broke Capitalism, was an instant New York Times bestseller. I love David Gelles, and I love his new book Dirtbag Billionaire: How Yvon Chouinard Built Patagonia, Made a Fortune, and Gave It All Away Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.
This is a crosspost from my Substack, where people have been liking and commenting a bunch. I'm too busy during my self-imposed version of Inkhaven to engage much – yes, pity me, I have to blog – but I don't want to leave Forum folks out of the loop! I've been following Effective Altruism discourse since 2014 and involved with the Effective Altruist community since 2015. My credentials are having run Harvard Law School and Harvard University (pan-grad schools) EA, donating $45,000 to EA causes (eep, not 10%), working at 80,000 Hours for three years, and working at a safety-oriented AI org for 10 months after that. I'm also proud of the public comms I've done for EA on this blog (here, here, and here), through my 80k podcast series, current podcast series, and through EA career advice talks I've given at EAGs and smaller events. With that background, you can at least be confident that I am familiar with my subject matter in the takes that follow. As before, let me know which of these seems interesting or wrong and there's a good chance I'll write them up with you the commenter very much in mind as [...] --- First published: November 6th, 2025 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/s8aNPnrGH2fF3Hkpi/12-theses-on-ea --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
Hear from Judson Berkey, Managing Director in the Chief Sustainability Office at UBS, as we learn first-hand how banks are approaching nature risk. Within finance, nature is usually treated as background: important, but invisible. However, that is beginning to change. New frameworks, regulations, and expectations are emerging worldwide, and many firms are starting to measure their impacts and dependencies on nature. In this episode, we explore how that shift is happening from the perspective of someone inside one of the world's largest banks. We discuss: Which lessons from climate disclosure apply to nature, and which do not; Why some regulatory approaches to ESG-type topics are more effective than others; and The importance of not waiting for perfect data before taking action. To find out more about the Sustainability and Climate Risk (SCR®) Certificate, follow this link: https://www.garp.org/scr For more information on climate risk, visit GARP's Global Sustainability and Climate Risk Resource Center: https://www.garp.org/sustainability-climate If you have any questions, thoughts, or feedback regarding this podcast series, we would love to hear from you at: climateriskpodcast@garp.com Speaker's Bio Judson Berkey, Managing Director, Chief Sustainability Office, UBS Judson is a Managing Director in the Chief Sustainability Office at UBS based in Zurich where he has worked since 2003 on global risk, regulatory and compliance topics. He currently focuses on sustainable finance policy and regulation including engagement with policymakers and standard setters. He also leads UBS work on nature. He graduated from Harvard Law School and the University of Virginia and is on the board of ECOFACT. He currently chairs the Institute of International Finance Sustainable Finance Working Group and represents UBS on the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures and Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero Steering Group.
This week's guest, Andrea Leiter, is one of those polymaths who brings not just breadth, but astonishing depth to the work of bridging the worlds of technology, biodiversity and international law; bringing them together in service of a new way of being built from the ruins of collapse. Andrea works at the intersection of law, digital transformation, and economic innovation. Director of Amsterdam Center for International Law, she's deeply aware of, and involved in, Transnational Law, Digital Economies & Institutional Innovation, all things crypto - as well as being a Social Justice Entrepreneur. She holds a jointly awarded PhD in Law from the University of Melbourne and the University of Vienna, where her dissertation examined the historical foundations of international investment law and the legal architectures of global capital. Her resulting manuscript titled ‘Making the World Safe for Investment: The Protection of Foreign Property 1922-1959' was published with Cambridge University Press. She is a junior faculty member at the Institute for Global Law and Policy at Harvard Law School. As legal scholar and strategist, her expertise lies in transnational law, private ordering, the governance of digital economies, and the design of new institutional forms for just and sustainable futures. I came across her when she was a guest on the Blockchain Socialist podcast - one of my must-listens - and heard that she was co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer of the Sovereign Nature Initiative (SNI), a venture which aimed to 'merge nature with digital ecosystems and introduce online communities to ecological stewardship whilst developing novel funding mechanisms for vital biodiversity protection and restoration'. you'll hear more about this in the conversation that follows, but I want to emphasise that the SNI team designed and implemented the Decentralised Ecological Economics Protocol (DEEP), which demonstrated how blockchain infrastructure can serve biodiversity goals. Over two years, SNI developed and distributed more than one million digital collectibles, activating new models of ecological value creation.Currently, Andrea leads a Dutch Research Council-funded VENI project on Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) and their potential to reshape economic governance from below. She also serves as Acting Director of Research at the Amsterdam Center for International Law, where she guides strategic research planning and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. She also co-developed and launched an Advanced LLM in Technology Governance with a public purpose orientation, an effort that included curriculum design, funding acquisition, and stakeholder engagement.One of Andrea's superpowers is the ability to take complex concepts and make them comprehensible to ordinary people: blockchain, cryptocurrency, the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum, the potential for technology to be used to heal as well as the many ways it is already being used to harm, so we spent the first half of our conversation exploring the baselines of where we are and what's happening in the world. I refer to Andrea's blog post, 'Who gets to bet on the future?' which first appeared on her Transformative Private Law Blog and is linked in the show notes. She mentioned several books and I've linked those in the show notes too, because they were new to me, and completely mind blowing. I found ExoCapitalism as a pdf where you decide what you pay - this is the value of small presses that actually get what their books are discussing - and Protocols for Post Capitalist Expression is open source - you can read it and engage in the process with others in the Economic Space Agency. Links Sovereign Nature Initiative https://sovereignnature.com/Andrea on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-leiter/Amsterdam Centre for Intenational Law https://acil.uva.nl/VENI project https://www.nwo.nl/en/researchprogrammes/nwo-talent-programme/projects-veniTransformative Private Law Blog "Who gets to bet on the future?" https://transformativeprivatelaw.com/who-gets-to-bet-on-the-future/Andrea on Blockchain Socialist Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-blockchain-socialist/id1501607045?i=1000660699306Between Gaia and Ground: Four Axioms of Existence and the Ancestral Catastrophe of Late Liberalism by Elizabeth A. Povinelli https://dukeupress.edu/between-gaia-and-groundExoCapitalism: Economies with Absolutely No Limits by Marek Poliks & Roberto Alonso Trillo https://goodpress.co.uk/products/exocapitalism-economies-with-absolutely-no-limits-by-marek-poliks-roberto-alonso-trilloPROTOCOLS FOR POST CAPITALIST EXPRESSION by Dick Bryan, Jorge López & Akseli Virtanen https://postcapitalist.agency/What we offer: Accidental Gods, Dreaming Awake and the Thrutopia Writing Masterclass If you'd like to join our next Open Gathering offered by our Accidental Gods Programme it's 'Dreaming Your Year Awake' (you don't have to be a member) on Sunday 4th January 2026 from 16:00 - 20:00 GMT - details are hereIf you'd like to join us at Accidental Gods, this is the membership where we endeavour to help you to connect fully with the living web of life. If you'd like to train more deeply in the contemporary shamanic work at Dreaming Awake, you'll find us here. If you'd like to explore the recordings from our last Thrutopia Writing Masterclass, the details are here
How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe
Ruth Rogers, Baroness Rogers of Riverside, CBE, is an American and British chef who owns and runs the Michelin-starred Italian restaurant The River Café in Hammersmith, London. Get her cookbook River Cafe London: Thirty Years of Recipes and the Story of a Much-Loved Restaurant: A Cookbook Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.
“ Military children serve alongside their parents, except they're invisible.” – Harold Kudler, M.D. Millions of American children have had parents serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other wars following September 11, 2001. This episode focuses on the wellbeing of those children, who tend to grow up fast. Susan Hackley is the director of the short documentary film Veteran Children. The film offers a window into the often hidden lives of military spouses and kids. Through interviews and roundtables, viewers meet children who have suffered as a result of their parents' service, and also those who stepped up to help a wounded parent. Hackley made the film after a long career in peacebuilding, during which she served 19 years as managing director of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, one of the world's leading centers of negotiation and conflict analysis. She also served as Chair of the Alliance for Peace Building. Military lives and families are personal to Hackley. She lost a boyfriend in the Vietnam war, and her son served as a Marine Corps infantryman in Iraq. Dr. Harold Kudler is a psychiatrist and expert on the mental health of veterans and their families, who is featured in Veteran Children. He's a Medical Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. LEARN MOREWatch Veteran Children for free (30 minutes)Statistics and recommended reading from the Veteran Children ProjectIssue of the journal The Future of Children on Military Children and Families, with chapter Building Communities of Care for Military Children and Families co-written by Dr. Harold KudlerThe Military Child Education CoalitionSesame Street's Resources for Military FamiliesZero to Three's Resources for Military Families The Military Family Research Center at Purdue University ABOUT THE SHOW The Making Peace Visible podcast is hosted by Jamil Simon and produced by Andrea Muraskin. Our associate producer is Faith McClure. Learn more at makingpeacevisible.orgSupport our work Connect on social:Instagram @makingpeacevisibleLinkedIn @makingpeacevisibleBluesky @makingpeacevisible.bsky.social We want to learn more about our listeners. Take this 3-minute survey to help us improve the show!
This week we are joined by Jamie Harrow! Jamie Harrow was born and raised at the Jersey Shore. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Villanova University and lives in New Jersey with her family. Her debut novel, One on One, was published by Dutton in 2024. Fun at Parties, her second novel, is available now.In this episode, Jamie Harrow discusses the importance of embracing non-linear career paths and the valuable lessons learned from diverse experiences. She discusses her experience growing up on the Jersey Shore, being the “nerd” in a sporty family, being soft spoken in school, and her experiences with identity and motherhood. Recommendations From This Episode: Little Giants The Geography of Bliss: One Grump's Search For The Happiest Places In The World Follow Jamie: @jamieharrowbooksFollow Carly: @carlyjmontagFollow Emily: @thefunnywalshFollow the podcast: @aloneatlunchpod Please rate and review the podcast! Spread the word! Tell your friends! Email us: aloneatlunch@gmail.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Today on the show, Fareed speaks with constitutional scholars Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, and John Yoo, a former Justice Department Official in the George W. Bush administration, about the challenge against President Trump's sweeping tariffs in the Supreme Court this week, and what may happen if the Court rules the tariffs unlawful.Then, New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, author of the new book “1929", sits down with Fareed to discuss what preceded the Great Depression—and if we are headed for a similar stock market crash.Finally, CNN anchor Bianna Golodryga and Israeli journalist Yonit Levi join the show for a conversation about their new novel for young readers, “Don't Feed the Lion” and how to address the rise of antisemitism in the US and around the world.GUESTS: Noah Feldman (@NoahRFeldman); John Yoo; Andrew Ross Sorkin (@andrewrsorkin); Bianna Golodryga (@biannagolodryga); Yonit Levi (@LeviYonit) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Matthew Brickman explains the current process for DIY Divorce, Paternity and Modification actions in the State of Florida. Matthew Brickman answers your most frequently asked questions about divorce as he goes over several key points:Assume nothing.Know who you are before you get married. Know who you're getting married to. Know the laws and statutes in the state you live in.Don't take advice from anyone who isn't a legal professional in the state in which you're getting married and living in.If you have a matter, disagreement, or dispute you need professional help with then visit iMediate.com - Email mbrickman@ichatmediation or Call (877) 822-1479Matthew Brickman is a Florida Supreme Court certified family and appellate mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. But what makes him qualified to speak on the subject of conflict resolution is his own personal experience with divorce.Download Matthew's book on iTunes for FREE:You're Not the Only One - The Agony of Divorce: The Joy of Peaceful ResolutionMatthew Brickman President iMediate Inc. Mediator 20836CFAiMediateInc.comSCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION: https://ichatmediation.com/calendar/OFFICIAL BLOG: https://ichatmediation.com/podcastOFFICIAL YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/ichatmediationOFFICIAL LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ichat-mediation/ABOUT MATTHEW BRICKMAN:Matthew Brickman is a Supreme Court of Florida certified county civil family mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. He is also an appellate certified mediator who mediates a variety of small claims, civil, and family cases. Mr. Brickman recently graduated both the Harvard Business School Negotiation Mastery Program and the Negotiation Master Class at Harvard Law School.
Thank you once again for all your wonderful questions. Grateful for your support!
What if the voice telling you to be practical is actually blocking you from your greatest life? Tami Simon speaks with Tama Kieves, who walked away from Harvard Law School success to follow an inner calling she couldn't ignore. Together they explore why self-doubt can fuel spiritual seeking, how kindness unlocks genius, and what happened when Tama chose to be “the one who loves” with her difficult parents. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Listeners of Insights At The Edge get 10% off their first month at www.betterhelp.com/soundstrue. Note: This interview originally aired on Sounds True One, where these special episodes of Insights at the Edge are available to watch live on video and with exclusive access to Q&As with our guests. Learn more at join.soundstrue.com.
Andrew Ross Sorkin is an award-winning journalist for The New York Times and a co-anchor of Squawk Box, CNBC's signature morning program. He is also the founder and editor at large of DealBook, an online daily financial report published by The New York Times that he started in 2001. Sorkin is the bestselling author of Too Big to Fail and the co-producer of the 2011 film adaptation, which was nominated for eleven Emmy Awards. Sorkin is also the co-creator of the drama series Billions on Showtime. Get his absolutely brilliant book 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History--and How It Shattered a Nation here: https://amzn.to/47o3wgK Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.
My guest today is Jeff Skopek, a Professor of Law and the Deputy Director of the Centre for Law, Medicine, and Life Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge.His research explores the normative and conceptual foundations of health law, focusing in particular on the health care system, biomedical research, and controversies about what constitutes a harm or benefit within medical care. His recent research also focuses on animal rights. He joins us today to discuss a work in progress, Created To Be Killed.Show NotesAbout Jeff SkopekAbout Kim KrawiecAbout Mason Marché
Jeff Clements is the co-founder and CEO of American Promise. He served twice as Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, most notably as Chief of the Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau, where he led more than 100 attorneys and staff in critical law enforcement areas, including consumer protection, antitrust, and unfair trade practices. A frequent national speaker and author of a 2014 book called the "definitive guide to overturning Citizens United," Jeff's commentary has appeared in major outlets including The New York Times, Financial Times, and Newsweek. Get his 2014 book Corporations Are Not People here: https://amzn.to/48WFKJV Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.
Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous soul Dave Aronberg served three terms as the elected State Attorney for Palm Beach County from 2012 to 2024, where he led a team of 115 prosecutors and 180 professional staff in five offices throughout Palm Beach County. He is also a former Assistant Attorney General, White House Fellow and Florida Senator. In 2016, Aronberg created a Sober Homes Task Force that made more than 120 arrests for patient brokering and insurance fraud in the rehab industry, and has led to several new Florida laws and regulations that have become the model for other states. Aronberg's efforts also convinced Google to restrict advertisements and improve screening for addiction treatment. The crackdown in rogue sober homes and corrupted drug treatment centers contributed to a dramatic decrease in opioid-caused deaths in Palm Beach County. Dave Aronberg was born in Miami. He attended public schools before going on to graduate with honors from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. After graduation, he worked in the litigation department of a large South Florida law firm while also working closely with Insurance Commissioner Bill Nelson to investigate European insurance companies that refused to honor World War II-era policies sold to victims of the Holocaust. In 2000, Aronberg was selected to be one of 15 White House Fellows from across the country. In this nonpartisan position, he served in two presidential administrations as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury Department for international money laundering, including the laundering of terrorist assets. Dave Aronberg was elected to the State Senate in 2002 as its youngest member and served until 2010. In 2010, Aronberg returned to the Florida Attorney General's Office as a Special Prosecutor for Prescription Drug Trafficking. In his role as the Attorney General's "Drug Czar," Aronberg led an anti-pill mill initiative that helped clean up the pain clinic industry and reduced the record number of people dying each day from oxycodone abuse. Aronberg is a trial skills instructor at Harvard Law School, and frequently appears on cable television as a legal commentator. He is the managing partner of Dave Aronberg Law, P.A., and a strategic partner with Capital City Consulting in West Palm Beach. Read about Dave's book Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo All things Jon Carroll Buy Ava's Art Subscribe to Piano Tuner Paul Paul Wesley on Substack Listen to Barry and Abigail Hummel Podcast Listen to Matty C Podcast and Substack Follow and Support Pete Coe Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
Catherine Grace Katz is a Chicago-born writer and historian. She earned a BA in History from Harvard (2013) and an MPhil in Modern European History from Cambridge (2014), focusing on counterintelligence origins. After working in finance in New York, a bookstore visit inspired her return to history and writing. She is currently pursuing her JD at Harvard Law School. Get her brilliant book The Daughters Of Yalta: The Churchills, Roosevelts, and Harrimans: A Story of Love and War here: https://amzn.to/3WtWW20 Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.
Tequila delivers a shocking, high-stakes thriller that blends legal drama, betrayal, and survivalFrom the fiery heart of Mexico to the high-stakes boardrooms of Manhattan, an empire built on tequila becomes the battlefield for a blistering war of power, betrayal, and forbidden love in Tim Reuben's explosive debut thriller, TEQUILA: A Story of Love, Sex & Violence (Meridian Editions; October 14, 2025).Tim Reuben unleashes a thriller that follows three generations of the Ramirez family as they fight to control a multi-billion-dollar tequila empire while navigating betrayal, drug cartels, and devastating personal loss. When Maria Ramirez takes the reins as CEO of RAM—a luxury spirits powerhouse—she steps into a role plagued by enemies both outside and within: her corrupt, sociopathic brother Miguel and her spiraling, self-destructive brother Tomaso. Their actions threaten to not only destroy the company but bring the entire family to the edge of ruin—and death.Enter Brian Youngman, a Los Angeles attorney with a fierce moral compass and a deep commitment to justice. Initially hired to handle a contentious divorce case involving the Ramirez family, Brian is pulled into a terrifying underworld of smuggling, murder, and corporate corruption. Torn between his growing love for Maria and his professional ethics, Brian becomes a reluctant hero—a lawyer forced to make impossible choices as he helps unravel a web of financial crimes, cartel ties, and unimaginable violence.As the story explodes across global backdrops—from Manhattan skyscrapers and Mexican agave fields to the dark waters of the Gulf and billowing moors in Scotland—Maria and Brian must outwit assassins, survive captivity, and battle their own guilt to expose the truth. But in a world where family means power, and power demands blood, justice doesn't come without sacrifice.With searing legal drama and pulse-pounding twists, TEQUILA is a genre-bending epic—a gripping blend of courtroom suspense, emotional reckoning, and explosive thriller.TIM REUBEN is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He's a veteran trial lawyer and founded his own litigation firm in Los Angeles, where he also actively publishes articles on topics of law and society. Inspired by his legal experiences, Reuben presents his first wholly fictional “thriller-killer” novel, Tequila. When not practicing law or writing, Reuben plays tennis and golf, hikes with his wife and two big dogs, and enjoys imbibing aged spirits, including tequila.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.
Today, we're joined by Jack Cushman, director of the Harvard Library Innovation Lab, where he and his team are reimagining how library principles can shape the future of legal technology. Jack is a software engineer and appellate attorney who previously led the development of the Caselaw Access Project. He has also taught computer programming at Harvard Law School, served as a Berkman fellow, and sat on the board of the ACLU of Massachusetts. At the Library Innovation Lab, Jack explores how libraries can better collect, preserve, and share knowledge. His current work focuses on the fragility of digital cultural memory and the emergence of AI as a new form of knowledge. In our conversation, Jack reflects on his journey from computer programming to law school, the evolving mission of libraries in the digital age, and the skills lawyers need to thrive in an AI-driven world. He also shares his perspective on how we should measure the impact and reliability of AI systems in legal practice. Read the full transcript of today's episode here: https://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/podcast_transcripts/Pioneers_%20JackCushman.pdf
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Spivey consultant and former admissions dean Nikki Laubenstein discusses the financial aid and student loan considerations that prospective law students should be thinking about post-"Big Beautiful Bill," joined by Sydney Montgomery, who is the Executive Director & Founder of Barrier Breakers, and Kristin Shea, who has led the law school financial aid office at Syracuse University for almost a decade as a part of a 20-year career in legal education.Nikki, Sydney, and Kristen talk about the changes to student loans and student loan caps resulting from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (9:43), the changes to repayment plans (35:58), who those changes apply to (5:21), the differences between undergraduate financial aid/scholarships and law school financial aid/scholarships (20:52), understanding tuition vs. total cost of attendance and how that relates to scholarship reconsideration and student loan caps (24:17), possible ways schools could help fill the gap especially for students targeting public interest jobs (38:21), advice for those planning to work while in law school (41:00), why prospective law students should start thinking about financial aid earlier on in the admissions process than most do (30:47), and more.Barrier Breakers is a nonprofit that has worked with 7,000+ first-generation and other marginalized students on the college and law school application process. Sydney Montgomery, the daughter of a Jamaican immigrant mother and military parents, was the first person from her high school to go to Princeton University and then later Harvard Law School. She has dedicated her life and career to supporting first-generation students and has a particular passion for financial aid. She is a member of the Forbes Nonprofit Council and has been featured in Inc., Forbes, FastCompany, Medium, CNBC, and others. Kristin Shea is a higher education professional with twenty years of experience, including law school enrollment management, recruitment, and financial aid; alumni, donor, and employer relations; and marketing and communications. The last decade of her career has been dedicated to financial aid, and she is passionate about helping law students make smart, thoughtful financial plans for their education. She holds a bachelor's degree in biology and psychology and an MBA from Le Moyne College.We hope to do a follow-up episode in the spring with more information on how law schools are addressing these changes. We also encourage you to reach out to the financial aid offices of schools you're considering once admitted to learn about any programs they may offer and any assistance they can provide. As Kristin says in this episode, "The map may have some alternative directions, but you can still reach your destination, and there are many people who want to help." We have also linked a number of financial aid resources below.Federal Student Aid:FAFSA® Application | Federal Student Aid – 2026-27 FAFSA available noOne Big Beautiful Bill Act Updates | Federal Student AidRepaying Student Loans 101 | Federal Student AidWhat does cost of attendance (COA) mean? | Federal Student Aid AccessLex Institute Resources:Student Loan Calculator | AccessLexStudent Aid Policy and Action Center | AccessLexPaying for Law School | AccessLexGuide to Private Student Loans | AccessLexScholarship Databank | AccessLex – includes more than 800 law scholarship and writing competitions (totaling more than $3M).Free Credit Report:Annual Credit Report.com - Home PageEqual Justice Works – LRAP FAQImportant Questions to Ask About Any LRAP - Equal Justice Works--You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript (with timestamps) here.
Nick Maggiulli is the COO and data scientist at Ritholtz Wealth Management, where he oversees operations across the firm and provides insights on business intelligence. He is the author of two books, Just Keep Buying and The Wealth Ladder, and Of Dollars and Data, a blog focused on the intersection of data and personal finance. His work has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and the Los Angeles Times. Get his brilliant new NYT bestselling book The Wealth Ladder: Proven Strategies for Every Step of Your Financial Life here: https://amzn.to/4qpBJE5 Also, check out his first absolutely phenomenal book, Just Keep Buying: Proven ways to save money and build your wealth here: https://amzn.to/4nIONSx Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Send us a message! Really!Jason had to take an emergency trip to Argentina to check on his $20 billion investment in something called an "experiment in Anarcho-capitalism," so this week you've just got Ian interviewing David Seligman, candidate for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General of Colorado in 2026. We'll be back for an even bigger pod this Friday. One of the country's leading workers' rights, consumer rights, and antimonopoly lawyers, David Seligman has dedicated his legal career to fighting for regular people against corporate abuse. After attending Harvard Law School and clerking for federal trial and appellate judges, David became the Executive Director of Towards Justice, a nationally recognized non-profit legal and labor rights organization based in Denver. David has seen throughout his legal career that there are two sets of laws in this country: one for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. He has brought some of the most important and cutting-edge legal cases in the country, helping working Coloradans and small businesses take on powerful corporations and the Trump Administration. He stands up in court for nurses, rideshare drivers, meatpackers, Amazon workers, veterans, teachers, federal employees, grocery workers, renters buried in junk fees, and working families drowning in medical debt. You can learn more about David and his campaign at www.seligmanforag.comThat's it for this episode! If you loved watching and/or listening to it as much as we loved recording it, you can thank us by subscribing to the pod wherever you listen, following us over on New Old Twitter AKA Bluesky, subscribing to our shiny new channel on YouTube, smashing that subscribe button on our Substack, and sharing this episode with your friends, your enemies, and your 8th favorite Member of Congress from Colorado! THANK YOU so much for listening, and we'll see you next time!
Andrew Liveris is the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Dow Chemical Company and former Executive Chairman of DowDuPont. A recognized global business leader with more than 42 years at Dow and experience in manufacturing, engineering, sales, marketing, and business and general management. Get a copy of his WSJ bestselling book Leading through Disruption: A Changemaker's Guide to Twenty-First Century Leadership here: https://amzn.to/4pIjZU1 Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today, we're introducing the first episode in a new series: How to Disagree. As we expand our work to model and enable productive disagreement across lines of difference, we are trying something new with “How To Disagree.” Instead of bringing together experts to have a productive disagreement on social or political issues, we're delving into interpersonal disagreements.Episodes will feature coaching sessions with an individual struggling with a real-life disagreement (with a friend, family member or colleague) working with a world-class conflict resolution expert. Through these sessions, our guests will learn how to approach their particular rift, as well as more general skills and tools on how to more productively disagree. The first in this series is How to Disagree About Gender with a Close Friend, featuring Larissa Phillips. We actually recorded this session with Larissa live on Substack, and are very excited to share a produced version with you. Also, check out Larissa's excellent article on her experience with us in The Free Press.The Questions:How do we discuss politics with our friends when we don't see eye to eye?How do we engage one another without trying to persuade?How do we prepare for disagreements on hot button topics like gender?The GuestsLarissa Phillips is a columnist for The Free Press whose work focuses on finding community and fostering relationships as a Democrat living in the rural Hudson Valley. She is also the Director and Founder of the Volunteer Literacy Project, teaching basic literacy to adults. Bob Bordone is a senior fellow at Harvard Law School who has spent the last 25 years teaching negotiation and conflict resolution. He teaches negotiation to individuals and teams with a particular interest in addressing the United States' polarized climate. Bob recently wrote a book with a neuroscientist called Conflict Resilience: Negotiating Disagreement Without Giving Up or Giving In. Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/
Matthew Brickman sits down with Ryan D. Brown to discuss why there are situations where a person loses a house to their spouse in a divorce and then has to rent without the ability to financially withstand the impact of this event.Ryan D. Brown is the Branch Manager / Mortgage Loan Originator/ Divisional Vice President of the Palm Beach Gardens and Stuart locations of Cross Country Mortgage. For the last 5 years in a row The Ryan Brown Team won BEST LENDER in Palm Beach County by The Palm Beach Post and won the BEST LENDER in the Treasure Coast for 2025! --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Reifowitz is SUNY Distinguished Professor of Historical Studies at Empire State University of the State University of New York. His articles have appeared in the Daily News, Newsday, The New Republic, and In These Times, among other mainstream outlets. He has also published numerous academic articles. Get a copy of his book here Riling Up the Base: Examining Trump's Use of Stereotypes through an Interdisciplinary Lens here: https://amzn.to/4noElPR Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In this episode, CII General Counsel Jeff Mahoney interviews Kobi Kastiel of Tel Aviv University, Harvard Law School and the European Corporate Governance Institute. Professor Kastiel is a co-author of a recently issued research paper entitled the "Courts, Legislation, and Delaware Corporate Law."
Brody Mullins is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. He spent nearly two decades covering the intersection of business and politics for The Wall Street Journal. Get a copy of his brilliant book, The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In this episode, Lawfare's Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina sits down with Eric Ciaramella, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Mykhailo Soldatenko, a scholar of international law and a doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School, to discuss the latest meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, armed neutrality for Ukraine, and how Ukraine can nudge the ongoing peace negotiations in its favor.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School where he teaches courses on contracts, criminal law, and the regulation of race relations. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Randall Kennedy discuss the history of racism in the United States, the shortcomings of critical race theory, and whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about the trajectory of racism in America. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As large data centers move into the St. Louis region, they will require huge amounts of electricity. Experts say this dynamic is fundamentally changing the electric utility landscape in the U.S. STLPR's Kate Grumke speaks with Harvard Law School's Ari Peskoe about it.
Democratic backsliding, culture wars and partisan politics in the past two decades has seen the regression of human rights protections in the courts and across societies. However, having made incremental gains in constitutional courts, LGBTQ+ rights operate as somewhat of a paradox. In this pivotal work, Professor Rehan Abeyratne makes an argument that the progress made in LGBTQ+ rights protection obscures an increased shift towards authoritarian legality in the courts and beyond. Case studies of three apex courts - the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal - provide insight into the erosion of democracy and the rule of law across these jurisdictions. Courts and LGBTQ+ Rights in an Age of Judicial Retrenchment (Oxford UP, 2025) is an important work and should serve as a warning sign to constitutional lawyers, human rights scholars and anybody interested in the values that underpin liberal democracy as to the the limited ability of constitutional courts to protect rights in the current climate. Professor Rehan Abeyratne is is Professor and Associate Dean (Higher Degree Research) at Western Sydney University School of Law, where he teaches Government and Public Law, Legal Research and Methodology, and Comparative Law: Legal Systems of the World. He also coordinates the School of Law's Honours Program. Professor Abeyratne holds a PhD from Monash University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a BA (Hons.) in Political Science from Brown University. He researches comparative constitutional law and has published several books and articles in world leading journals. Most of Prof. Abeyratne's research can be freely accessed on SSRN, Academia, and Google Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies
Robert Hilland is a former police officer and FBI Special Agent who worked in law enforcement for 30 years. He worked a number of high-profile cases including the investigation of serial killer John Smith. John Edward is a psychic medium, lecturer, and multiple New York Times bestselling author who has connected people to Other Side energies for nearly four decades. In 2000, Edward's syndicated Syfy show, Crossing Over with John Edward, launched the now-popular television psychic genre, followed by John Edward Cross Country in 2006 on the WE network. Get their wonderful NYT bestselling book Chasing Evil: Shocking Crimes, Supernatural Forces, and an FBI Agent's Search for Hope and Justice here: https://amzn.to/3W3Z2W3 Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Democratic backsliding, culture wars and partisan politics in the past two decades has seen the regression of human rights protections in the courts and across societies. However, having made incremental gains in constitutional courts, LGBTQ+ rights operate as somewhat of a paradox. In this pivotal work, Professor Rehan Abeyratne makes an argument that the progress made in LGBTQ+ rights protection obscures an increased shift towards authoritarian legality in the courts and beyond. Case studies of three apex courts - the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal - provide insight into the erosion of democracy and the rule of law across these jurisdictions. Courts and LGBTQ+ Rights in an Age of Judicial Retrenchment (Oxford UP, 2025) is an important work and should serve as a warning sign to constitutional lawyers, human rights scholars and anybody interested in the values that underpin liberal democracy as to the the limited ability of constitutional courts to protect rights in the current climate. Professor Rehan Abeyratne is is Professor and Associate Dean (Higher Degree Research) at Western Sydney University School of Law, where he teaches Government and Public Law, Legal Research and Methodology, and Comparative Law: Legal Systems of the World. He also coordinates the School of Law's Honours Program. Professor Abeyratne holds a PhD from Monash University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a BA (Hons.) in Political Science from Brown University. He researches comparative constitutional law and has published several books and articles in world leading journals. Most of Prof. Abeyratne's research can be freely accessed on SSRN, Academia, and Google Scholar. 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
Democratic backsliding, culture wars and partisan politics in the past two decades has seen the regression of human rights protections in the courts and across societies. However, having made incremental gains in constitutional courts, LGBTQ+ rights operate as somewhat of a paradox. In this pivotal work, Professor Rehan Abeyratne makes an argument that the progress made in LGBTQ+ rights protection obscures an increased shift towards authoritarian legality in the courts and beyond. Case studies of three apex courts - the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal - provide insight into the erosion of democracy and the rule of law across these jurisdictions. Courts and LGBTQ+ Rights in an Age of Judicial Retrenchment (Oxford UP, 2025) is an important work and should serve as a warning sign to constitutional lawyers, human rights scholars and anybody interested in the values that underpin liberal democracy as to the the limited ability of constitutional courts to protect rights in the current climate. Professor Rehan Abeyratne is is Professor and Associate Dean (Higher Degree Research) at Western Sydney University School of Law, where he teaches Government and Public Law, Legal Research and Methodology, and Comparative Law: Legal Systems of the World. He also coordinates the School of Law's Honours Program. Professor Abeyratne holds a PhD from Monash University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a BA (Hons.) in Political Science from Brown University. He researches comparative constitutional law and has published several books and articles in world leading journals. Most of Prof. Abeyratne's research can be freely accessed on SSRN, Academia, and Google Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies
Welcome to another LEGENDARY episode of Storybeast! Our Legendaries are special guests who are an expert within their area of storytelling. In this episode, Ghabiba Weston and Courtney Shack have the pleasure of interviewing legendary Dr. Grace Nosek.Dr. Grace Nosek is a long-time community organizer, storyteller, and sociolegal scholar focusing on environmental justice and democracy. She centers justice, joyful community, storytelling, civic engagement, and systems change in her work and scholarship. As a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto, Grace researched novel strategies to inoculate youth against climate despair, and co-authored the City of Toronto's Youth Climate Engagement Strategy. Grace's research has been supported by Fulbright, Killam, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation scholarships, and she holds a BA from Rice University, a law degree from Harvard Law School, and a Master of Laws and PhD in law from the University of British Columbia. Her research, fiction, and non-fiction writing have been published and shared widely and she has been a frequent public speaker and media contributor.In this episode, you'll hear:Grace bringing her iconic sleepover energy to the podabout the power of taking your time and the space to dreamabout ROOTBOUNDthe unbelievable power of storytellingGrace on humans as meaning making machinesinsight into external and internal storiesmore about re-releasing and the inspiration behind the revisions in ROOTBOUNDabout stan culture and meme cultureabout "magicifying" metaphorical real world systemsa real life map of climate action we can takemore on narrative seeding and real world dark magicabout the housewives of climatehow to approach networking through meaningful connection and authenticityFor more storytelling content to your inbox, subscribe to our newsletter.Feel free to reach out if you want to talk story or snacks!A warm thank you to Deore for our musical number. You can find more of her creative work on Spotify.As ever, thank you for listening, Beasties! Please consider leaving a review to support this podcast.Be brave, stay beastly!
Patrick McGee was the Financial Times's principal Apple reporter from 2019 to 2023, during which time he won a San Francisco Press Club Award for his coverage. He joined the newspaper in 2013, in Hong Kong, before reporting from Germany and California. Previously, he was a bond reporter at The Wall Street Journal. He has a master's degree in global diplomacy from SOAS, University of London, and a degree in religious studies from the University of Toronto. This is, without a doubt, the best business book of 2025! Get your copy of Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company here: https://amzn.to/3IJTxsF Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud was the fiftieth chief justice of India. An alumnus of Harvard Law School, he served as additional solicitor general of India. He was appointed as a judge of the Bombay High Court in 2000 and became the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court in 2013. In 2016, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India, where he served as chief justice from November 2022 to November 2024.Justice Chandrachud is the author of a new compilation of speeches titled, Why the Constitution Matters. In it, the author reflects on his quarter-century of experience as a judge, illustrating how the Constitution impacts everyday life and why it remains a cornerstone of democracy.Justice Chandrachud joins Milan this week to about his new book and the state of the Court in India today. The two discuss the place of the Court in India's current political environment, the relationship between the judicial and executive branches, the weaknesses in the rule of law supply chain, and the role of the Court in “cleansing politics.” Plus, the two discuss the Court's verdict in the controversial electoral bonds case, the judicial branch's need for administrative reforms, and public trust in the Supreme Court.Episode notes:1. “A Blueprint for India's State Capacity Revolution (with Karthik Muralidharan),” Grand Tamasha, May 23, 2024.2. “The Indian Supreme Court in the Modi Era (with Gautam Bhatia),” Grand Tamasha, December 13, 2023.3. “Demystifying the Indian Supreme Court (with Aparna Chandra),” Grand Tamasha, November 15, 2023.4. Pratik Datta and Suyash Rai, “How to Start Resolving the Indian Judiciary's Long-Running Case Backlog,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 9, 2021.5. Devesh Kapur and Milan Vaishnav, “Strengthening Rule of Law,” in Bibek Debroy, Ashley J. Tellis, and Reece Trevor, eds. Getting India Back on Track: An Action Agenda for Reform (New Delhi: Random House India, 2014): 247-263
Today I have the honor and the pleasure of speaking with legal scholar Mary Anne Franks, about her book, Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment. As the title of the book indicates, this is a fearless and iconoclastic critique of the ways that the First Amendment has been interpreted and mobilized in ways that protect and extend racism, misogyny, religious fundamentalism, and corporate self-interest. Among other topics, we talk about Amber Heard case and the limitations of groups like the ACLU and the misleading ways “cancel culture” is portrayed, along with the efforts to stifle speech that documents the promotion of misinformation, and the federal government's extortion of media conglomerates to censor and remove satirists like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel. This promulgation of what Franks calls “reckless speech” does not have to persist. Franks calls on us to foster and practice “fearless speech” and to multiply counter-publics that take inspiration from the historical cases she presents. This is an especially timely and important episode of Speaking Out of Place.Dr. Mary Anne Franks is the Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law at George Washington Law School. An internationally recognized expert on the intersection of civil rights, free speech, and technology, Dr. Franks also serves as the President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, the leading U.S.-based nonprofit organization focused on image-based sexual abuse. Her model legislation on the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (NDII, sometimes referred to as “revenge porn”) has served as the template for multiple state and federal laws, and she regularly advises lawmakers and tech companies on privacy, free expression, and safety issues. She is the author of two books: Fearless Speech (Bold Type Books, 2024) and The Cult of the Constitution (Stanford Press, 2019). She holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School as well as a doctorate and a master's degree from Oxford University, where she studied as a Rhodes Scholar. She is an Affiliate Fellow of the Yale Law School Information Society Project and is admitted to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court and the District of Columbia.
Jake Tapper is a CNN anchor and chief Washington correspondent, currently anchoring an award-winning two-hour weekday program, The Lead with Jake Tapper. He is also the best-selling author of six books. Get his latest book, which I learned a lot from Race Against Terror: Chasing an Al Qaeda Killer at the Dawn of the Forever War here: https://amzn.to/48rIQFz Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Leland Vittert is the host of On Balance with Leland Vittert and serves as NewsNation's Chief Washington Anchor. A veteran journalist, Vittert joined NewsNation in May 2021, where he has been pivotal in covering national affairs and delivering special reports across the network's primetime weeknight newscasts. Before joining NewsNation, Vittert worked for Fox News from 2010 to 2021, starting as a foreign correspondent based in Jerusalem and later as an anchor and correspondent in Washington. Get his wonderful new book and help make it a bestseller: Born Lucky: A Dedicated Father, A Grateful Son, and My Journey with Autism here: https://amzn.to/3KrXMtm Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
On today's episode, Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sits down with Philippe Sands, a professor of law at the University of London and the Samuel Pisar Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School to discuss his new book, “38 Londres Street: On Impunity, Pinochet in England, and a Nazi in Patagonia.”They discuss the intertwined stories of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and Nazi SS commander Walther Rauff, his uncanny personal connections to those stories, how Pinochet's arrest and the subsequent legal battle over his extradition changed international criminal law, and how writing the book informed his thinking on the U.S. Supreme Court's immunity ruling in Trump v. United States.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This episode is a must-listen for anyone who's ever felt like legal talk is impossible to understand (
In this episode, Lawfare's Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina sits down with Minna Ålander, an associate fellow at Chatham House Europe Program, and Mykhailo Soldatenko, a scholar of international law and a doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School, to discuss Russia's recent air incursions into Poland and Estonia, and whether NATO's response to it has been proportional.For more, read a report about Russian hybrid warfare co-authored by Minna Ålander.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
