Podcast appearances and mentions of jed shugerman

From October 28, 2022: There's been a lot of discussion about whether Donald Trump should be indicted. Lately, that discussion has focused on the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-lago or the Jan. 6 committee's revelations about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. But what about his speech on the ellipse on Jan. 6 when he told a crowd of thousands to “fight like hell,” and they went on to attack the Capitol? Isn't that incitement?Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Alan Rozenshtein, a senior editor at Lawfare and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School. Alan and Jed explained the complicated First Amendment jurisprudence protecting political speech, even when it leads to violence, and why they believe that given everything we know now, Trump may in fact be criminally liable. They also reference Alan and Jed's law review article in Constitutional Commentary, “January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Solution.”To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Presidential power expert Professor Jed Shugerman stops by Supreme Myths to talk Presidential Immunity, Section 3 Disqualification, Chevron, and how Originalism should work in separation of powers cases.

Never before has a former or sitting U.S. president been convicted of felony crimes. Until now.A jury of 12 New Yorkers found former President Donald Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Hosts Scott Detrow and Juana Summers are joined by an NPR roundtable — Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson, Senior Editor and Correspondent Domenico Montanaro, White House Correspondent Franco Ordenez, Boston University professor Jed Shugerman, and from the courthouse, Andrea Bernstein. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

For this episode of Trump's Trials, host Scott Detrow speaks with NPR political reporter Ximena Bustillo and Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman. The prosecution's star witness, Michael Cohen was on the stand for three days this week. He testified about the alleged scheme to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels and the alleged business fraud that followed. Cohen placed former President Trump at the scene saying he was aware and involved in the alleged cover up. But Cohen is an admitted liar and the defense called into question his credibility.Cohen is expected back on the stand on Monday and is likely the prosecution's final witness. Closing statements may begin as soon as Tuesday.Topics include:- Michael Cohen testimony- What prosecution needs to prove- What's nextFollow the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify for new episodes each Saturday.Sign up for sponsor-free episodes and support NPR's political journalism at plus.npr.org/trumpstrials.Email the show at trumpstrials@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

For this episode of Trump's Trials, host Scott Detrow speaks with NPR senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro and Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman. This week adult film actress Stormy Daniels testified about her alleged sexual encounter with former president Donald Trump in 2006. Daniels described the encounter, which Trump denies took place, in great detail. Although whether or not Trump and Daniels had sex is not what the jury will rule on, it is the alleged event that led to a payment 10 years later that lies at the heart of the case. Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen is expected to testify on Monday. His testimony will be key for the prosecution's case. And calling Cohen's testimony into question will be a top priority for Trump's defense team. Topics include:- Stormy Daniels' testimony - Stormy Daniels' impact on the case - Michael Cohen to testify Follow the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify for new episodes each Saturday.Sign up for sponsor-free episodes and support NPR's political journalism at plus.npr.org/trumpstrials.Email the show at trumpstrials@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In today's episode, Dan is joined by Professor Jed Shugerman (Boston University School of Law) to discuss the recent SCOTUS hearing held arguing whether Trump has presidential immunity or not.

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman about lingering issues following the Supreme Court's decision in the Biden v. Nebraska student loan case. They discuss a recent paper Shugerman presented at a Gray Center research roundtable, “Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine.” […]

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman about lingering issues following the Supreme Court's decision in the Biden v. Nebraska student loan case. They discuss a recent paper Shugerman presented at a Gray Center research roundtable, “Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine.”Notes:Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman Major Questions About Presidentialism: Untangling the “Chain of Dependence” Across Administrative Law, Jed Handelsman Shugerman and Jodi L. Short Standing Without Injury, Jonathan H. AdlerAn Originalist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine, Michael D. Ramsey The Major Questions Doctrine: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedy, Thomas W. Merrill The Ghosts of Chevron Present and Future, Gary S. Lawson The Major Answers Doctrine, Lisa Heinzerling The New Purpose and Intent in Major Questions Cases, Anita S. Krishnakumar The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded, Ronald M. Levin The Minor Questions Doctrine, Aaron L. Nielson The Major Questions Doctrine Outside Chevron‘s Domain, Adam R.F. Gustafson

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by law professor extraordinaire Jed Shugerman to talk over his controversial take on the New York district attorney's case against former President Trump, among other items in the week's national security news, including:“If You Come at the King, You Best Not Whiff.” Former President Trump's indictment on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York state law earlier this month has triggered a firestorm of controversy, with several commentators accusing New York district attorney Alvin Bragg of advancing a weak or flawed case. What should we make of Bragg's case based on what we know so far? And what more information should we be looking for?“Factual Malice.” Fox News has settled the defamation lawsuit being pursued against it by Dominion Voting Systems for a record $787.5 million—but without having to make an on-air acknowledgement of its false statements. Does this settlement deal do justice? Should Dominion have proceeded differently?“Secret Chinese Agents, Huh?” Federal prosecutors have arrested two individuals in Brooklyn for operating a “secret police station” on behalf of the People's Republic of China's internal security forces, aimed at investigating and intimidating dissidents and other disfavored individuals. How should the United States and other governments approach these China-backed presences? Is criminal prosecution the right tool?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by law professor extraordinaire Jed Shugerman to talk over his controversial take on the New York district attorney's case against former President Trump, among other items in the week's national security news, including:“If You Come at the King, You Best Not Whiff.” Former President Trump's indictment on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York state law earlier this month has triggered a firestorm of controversy, with several commentators accusing New York district attorney Alvin Bragg of advancing a weak or flawed case. What should we make of Bragg's case based on what we know so far? And what more information should we be looking for?“Factual Malice.” Fox News has settled the defamation lawsuit being pursued against it by Dominion Voting Systems for a record $787.5 million—but without having to make an on-air acknowledgement of its false statements. Does this settlement deal do justice? Should Dominion have proceeded differently?“Secret Chinese Agents, Huh?” Federal prosecutors have arrested two individuals in Brooklyn for operating a “secret police station” on behalf of the People's Republic of China's internal security forces, aimed at investigating and intimidating dissidents and other disfavored individuals. How should the United States and other governments approach these China-backed presences? Is criminal prosecution the right tool?For object lessons, Jed recommended "The Only Woman in the Room," a new biography of Israeli prime minister Golda Meir by his colleague Pnina Lahav. Quinta rolled logs for her latest piece on the Dominion settlement with Fox News in Lawfare. Alan highlighted the fact that Stormy Daniels has received a lifetime achievement award from PornHub—a publication Alan insists he reads for the articles—as well as the fantastic new Apple movie "Sharper." And Scott gave his strongest recommendation for season 2 of the phenomenal BBC podcast "The Lazarus Heist," which digs even deeper into the crimes of (and context surrounding) the North Korea-backed hacker ring, The Lazarus Group. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast This might be the best conversation unpacking this week's student debt SCOTUS oral arguments you'll hear. Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman returns to the pod and gets some healthy pushback from Student Borrower Protection Deputy Executive Director Persis Yu. The expertise on display here is extraordinary, as the two go back and forth over the Supreme Court's likely holding with respect to Biden's student debt policy based on a close reading of the oral arguments, and whether Jed's amicus brief, referenced by Kavanaugh during oral arguments, correctly raises concerns about an over-expansion of executive power. You won't want to miss this one. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

A breaking-news emergencies podcast right after the oral arguments in the Biden Student Debt cases: Nebraska v. Biden and Dept of Education vs. Brown, joined by:Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program, and a nationally expert on presidential emergency powers. She wrote immediately after the Biden plan was announced for the Washington Post: “Biden Using Emergency Powers for Student Debt Relief? That's a Slippery Slope,” linked here.And we're joined by Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center.Jed explains his amicus brief (and essay proposing an "Emergency Question Doctrine" to limit the Major Question Doctrine), which Justice Kavanaugh mentioned in oral argument, linked here.Materials Mentioned in this Episode:Materials Mentioned in this Episode:Biden v. Nebraska Department of EducationDocket         Oral ArgumentDepartment of Education v. BrownDocketOral ArgumentBrief of Jed Handelsman Shugerman as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents. Linked here.Jed Shugerman, "Major Questions and an Emergency Question Doctrine: The Biden Student Debt Case Study of Pretextual Abuse of Emergency Powers." 2023. Linked here.Jed Shugerman, “The Biden Student Debt Plan is a Legal Mess,” The Atlantic, Sept. 2022. Linked here. Subscription required. Elizabeth Goitein, “The Alarming Scope of the President's Emergency Powers,” The Atlantic, January/February 2019.  Linked here. Subscription to the Atlantic required.West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). Linked here. Zephyr Teachout. Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2016).  Buy on Amazon. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). Linked here.Andrew Kent, Ethan J. Leib, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, “Faithful Execution and Article II, 132 Harvard Law Review 2111 (2019). Linked here.

This week, Fordham Law School professor and Author of The People's Courts, Jed Shugerman, Ph.D. joins Abby in the classroom to explain the role of the Department of Justice. Jed shares why the DOJ was established and the role it plays within the United States government. He also answers a question on the appointing of a special counsel and the role of the U.S. Attorney General. Later, Abby and Jed unpack how the DOJ holds the Executive Branch accountable for any evidence of corruption and the misuse of their authority. Keep up with Abby after class on Twitter: @AbbyHornacek Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dan is joined by Professor Jed Shugerman of Fordham University to discuss SCOTUS hearing arguments on Moore v. Harper.

There's been a lot of discussion about whether Donald Trump should be indicted. Lately, that discussion has focused on the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-lago or the Jan. 6 committee's revelations about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. But what about his speech on the ellipse on Jan. 6 when he told a crowd of thousands to “fight like hell,” and they went on to attack the Capitol? Isn't that incitement? Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Alan Rozenshtein, a senior editor at Lawfare and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School. Alan and Jed explained the complicated First Amendment jurisprudence protecting political speech, even when it leads to violence, and why they believe that given everything we know now, Trump may in fact be criminally liable. They also reference Alan and Jed's law review article in Constitutional Commentary, “January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Solution” (forthcoming 2023).Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Fordham Law School professors Jed Shugerman and Julie Suk as we navigate breaking news about democracies breaking. With threats to constitutional democracy at home and abroad surfacing almost daily, Jed and Julie will have real debates assessing them. Are we in a constitutional crisis yet? Is the U.S. Constitution itself the crisis? How can the law help?

It seems they'll cancel everything except student debt. I spoke to law professor Jed Shugerman about his latest at the Atlantic in which he argued that Biden's student debt plan will fail a legal challenge. Let's discuss tonight. Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

A conversation about a piece Jed Shugerman co-authored in Persuasion magazine.  Jed Shugerman is a Professor at Fordham Law School. He received his B.A., J.D., and Ph.D. (History) from Yale.   

A conversation about a piece Jed Shugerman co-authored in Persuasion magazine.  Jed Shugerman is a Professor at Fordham Law School. He received his B.A., J.D., and Ph.D. (History) from Yale.   

This week, Quinta and Scott were joined by Lawfare's new Managing Editor, Tyler McBrien, to hash through the week's national security news, including: “(John) Dean for a Day.” Surprise testimony by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson has shed unprecedented light on Donald Trump's actions on Jan. 6th and reinvigorated discussions of possible criminal charges, among other consequences. Was this the smoking gun? What might it change moving forward?“The Prince and the Proffer.” A federal judge has asked the federal government to weigh in on whether Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has sovereign immunity in relation to civil lawsuits over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. What legal questions does this raise and what will the United States do?“When Federalism Gets Weird.” The Supreme Court has taken up Moore v. Harper, promising that it will soon weigh in on the controversial proposition that the Constitution gives state legislatures authority over federal elections that even state constitutions and courts cannot supersede. What could this case mean for American democracy?For object lessons, Quinta endorsed a visual demonstration of the challenges of historical research posted by law professor Julian Mortenson. Scott urged listeners to think outside the box while using their grills this summer, most notably by making the most under appreciated grill option: grill pizza. And Tyler endorsed Rebecca Solnit's new biography of George Orwell as a gardener, Orwell's Roses.Some of the other pieces we discussed in this episode include:Alan Rozenshtein and Jed Shugerman's article for Lawfare documenting how Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony convinced the former President Trump could be criminally prosecuted;Former federal judge and conservative legal luminary Michael Luttig's Twitter thread on the originalism and federalism issues with independent state legislature doctrine. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Hosts Walt Shaub and Virginia Heffernan investigate the ways presidential power has expanded at the expense of checks and balances. What systems exist to rein in a would-be authoritarian president, and how are they faring in these turbulent times?  The hosts talk to historian Matt Dallek, who explains the expansion of presidential power and the dangers of relying on norms and traditions alone to rein in executive power. As Dallek notes, some theorists have flooded the zone with talk of a nearly omnipotent leader who resembles a king more than a president. But law professor Jed Shugerman joins Virginia and Walt to offer listeners a differing view of the executive: that of a faithful servant who is limited by the responsibility to take care in carrying out the laws enacted by Congress. With the nation at a crossroads in the struggle between democracy and a burgeoning authoritarian movement, questions about the president's power have never seemed more urgent. The episode's third guest, POGO's own Liz Hempowicz, wraps up the show by telling our hosts about pending legislation that could add new, crucial checks on a president's power. The Continuous Action is sponsored by The Project On Government Oversight. Stay tuned on the latest from POGO: pogo.org/subscribe For show notes, visit: pogo.org/series-collections/the-continuous-action/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Professors Jed Shugerman and Mike Ramsey join Supreme Myths to discuss Presidential Power, Originalism, and Judicial Review.

Virginia Heffernan talks to Trumpcast favorite, Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman, about the big picture behind Amy Coney Barrett, ways we can disestablish the Senate, and the concept of originalism when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan talks to Trumpcast favorite, Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman, about the big picture behind Amy Coney Barrett, ways we can disestablish the Senate, and the concept of originalism when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jed Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University. He and his colleague Ethan Leib filed a motion before Judge Amy Berman Jackson regarding Roger Stone's commutation. They argue "that the Constitution limits the pardon power to uses that are in the public interest, not primarily for self-interest, self-dealing, or self-protection." For more information and for links to Jed's law review articles related to these arguments, check out his blog post.

Virginia Heffernan welcomes back Fordham law professor Jed Shugerman to get into the weeds about AG Bill Barr, Michael Flynn’s story up until this point, Geoffrey Berman of the Southern District of New York, and the Unitary Executive Theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan welcomes back Fordham law professor Jed Shugerman to get into the weeds about AG Bill Barr, Michael Flynn’s story up until this point, Geoffrey Berman of the Southern District of New York, and the Unitary Executive Theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fordham Law Professor Jed Shugerman explains the Supreme Court's sweeping and historic LGBT rights decision making employment discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people illegal across the United States. This is a 43-minute excerpt of the 90-minute interview, to hear the rest of the show, and support our work, please become a subscriber over at Patreon, thanks.

Virginia Heffernan talks to Fordham Law’s Jed Shugerman about how we’re approaching the “end game” of impeachment, what might happen to Trump in the courts post-impeachment, clarifying statements from Trump private lawyer William Consovoy, Tish James, the Washington Nationals’ booing of Trump at the World Series, and much, much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan talks to Fordham Law’s Jed Shugerman about how we’re approaching the “end game” of impeachment, what might happen to Trump in the courts post-impeachment, clarifying statements from Trump private lawyer William Consovoy, Tish James, the Washington Nationals’ booing of Trump at the World Series, and much, much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For a big think on former special counsel Robert Mueller's Wednesday testimony, Virginia Heffernan welcomes back Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For a big think on former special counsel Robert Mueller's Wednesday testimony, Virginia Heffernan welcomes back Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A flurry of decisions this week, but few big-ticket items. Mark Joseph Stern takes us through  the opinions and dissents in Flowers v Mississippi, Gundy v United States and American Legion v American Humanist Association. Dahlia Lithwick is also joined by Jed Shugerman and Andrew Kent of Fordham University Law School, two of the authors of the Harvard Law Review article, Faithful Execution and Article II, which examines whether the constitution holds the President to some higher standard than just not doing crimes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A flurry of decisions this week, but few big-ticket items. Mark Joseph Stern takes us through  the opinions and dissents in Flowers v Mississippi, Gundy v United States and American Legion v American Humanist Association. Dahlia Lithwick is also joined by Jed Shugerman and Andrew Kent of Fordham University Law School, two of the authors of the Harvard Law Review article, Faithful Execution and Article II, which examines whether the constitution holds the President to some higher standard than just not doing crimes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this first day after the release of the Mueller Report, Virginia Heffernan talks revelations and redactions with Jed Shugerman, Fordham Law professor and author of “The People’s Courts.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this first day after the release of the Mueller Report, Virginia Heffernan talks revelations and redactions with Jed Shugerman, Fordham Law professor and author of “The People’s Courts.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan breaks down the weekend’s bombshell Mueller news with Jed Shugerman, Fordham Law professor, author of “The People’s Courts,” and co-author on an amicus brief in CREW v. Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan breaks down the weekend’s bombshell Mueller news with Jed Shugerman, Fordham Law professor, author of “The People’s Courts,” and co-author on an amicus brief in CREW v. Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ep. 420 | Originally Aired: November 24, 2018 The confirmation of Justice Bret Kavanaugh was a bruising episode for many Americans. Jed Shugerman views that confirmation process against the long history of America’s courts and essential debates over the constitutional limits on executive power. Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University. He attended Yale Law School and graduated in 2002, and went on to earned his PhD in History. Blending his two areas of study, Shugarman published, The People’s Courts: The Rise of Judicial Elections and Judicial Power in America. The book “traces the history of judicial elections and Americans’ quest for an independent judiciary―one that would ensure fairness for all before the law―from the colonial era to the present.” (Harvard University Press, 2012). His articles often appear in Law Journals such as Yale Law Journal, the Georgia Law Review and the Harvard Law Review.  

Here's your Thanksgiving Holiday episode, perfect for travel and your other holiday needs. If you listen only for law-related content, you'll probably want to skip to 01:17:16, where we somewhat casually discuss the controversy over whether the supposed Acting Attorney General was properly appointed. But we discuss many mailbag-related topics: the California fires and climate change (00:25), politeness and over-decorousness (8:53), how we imagine the mailbag and the miracles of pre-computer-age physical organization (11:06), how to find a good coffeeshop and the origins of "heyday" (22:15), our supposed bad taste in movies and our regard for certain consumer electronics (38:47), caselaw access and textbooks (55:44), seekers (59:44), markdown and word processing and the inevitable demise of Oral Argument (01:03:19), a discussion of the pretending Acting Attorney General and meltdowns and trainwrecks (01:17:16), podcast recommendations (01:33:30). Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0797yqk) About Michael Mann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann) About The Story of Star Wars LP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Star_Wars) Travis Bostick, Jóhann Jóhannsson, Mother!, and Sound Over Score (http://blogs.iac.gatech.edu/film2018/2018/02/12/johann-johannsson-mother-and-sound-over-score/) Caselaw Access Project (https://case.law); H2O (https://h2o.law.harvard.edu) About Markdown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) Oral Argument 11: Big Red Diesel (https://oralargument.org/11), on Markdown and word processors Ulysses (https://ulysses.app) and Byword (https://bywordapp.com) Bat Kid is cancer free (https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/1062860135662530560) Jed Shugerman, Whitaker’s Appointment as Acting Attorney General Is Statutorily Illegal (https://shugerblog.com/2018/11/09/whitakers-appointment-as-acting-attorney-general-is-statutorily-illegal/); Stephen Vladeck, Whitaker May Be a Bad Choice, but He’s a Legal One (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/opinion/trump-attorney-general-constitutional.html); Walter Dellinger and Marty Lederman, Initial Reactions to OLC’s Opinion on the Whitaker Designation as “Acting” Attorney General (https://www.justsecurity.org/61483/initial-reactions-olc-opinion-whitaker-designation-acting-attorney-general/) Podcasts: Bag Man (https://www.msnbc.com/bagman), Slow Burn (https://slate.com/slow-burn), Serial (https://serialpodcast.org) (and Oral Argument 44: Serial (https://oralargument.org/44)), Feeding Us (http://feedingus.libsyn.com), Ipse Dixit (https://shows.pippa.io/ipse-dixit)

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles the #1 emailed story to us this past week:  is the real story behind the Kavanaugh nomination that the Trump administration needs him on the Supreme Court to rule in Gamble v. U.S. regarding the dual sovereignty doctrine as it applies to double jeopardy? We begin with a quick note about the New York Times story on Trump's taxes which will be covered on Serious Inquiries Only. Then it's time to figure out this claim about Gamble v. U.S. that fact-checking website Snopes rated as "true."  Is it, though?  (Hint:  no.)  We'll tell you everything you need to know about the 5th Amendment's double jeopardy clause and what it might mean for anyone Trump pardons once Kavanaugh gets to the Court. And speaking of which, we segue from that claim to an update on all things Kavanaugh this week, including the Mitchell letter, the FBI investigation, Flake's statements, and even (gasp!) an Andrew Was Wrong. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #96 regarding the breach of an employment contract, with next week's guest Chad Schneider playing along.  Thomas needs to go 5-for-5... can he do it?  You'll have to listen and find out!  And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links You can read the New York Times story on Trump's taxes, and listen for Thomas's take on Serious Inquiries Only. The leading case on the "dual sovereign" doctrine as applied to the double jeopardy clause is Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985). Click here to read the administration's opposition brief in Gamble v. U.S., and here to check out the entire docket. This is the Jed Shugerman article we referenced regarding New York's "dual sovereigns" law. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Download Link

The Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Phrases like "faithful execution" are hardly unique to the constitutional setting. Rather, they have long been signals of both public and private relationships of trust and confidence, relationships that give rise to "fiduciary duties" in law. Ethan Leib and Jed Shugerman argue that the President has fiduciary duties and that these constrain his or her power to pardon and otherwise to act. This show’s links: Ethan Leib’s faculty profile (https://www.fordham.edu/info/23159/ethan_j_leib) and academic writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=344006) Jed Shugerman’s faculty profile (https://www.fordham.edu/info/23180/jed_shugerman), academic writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=625422), and blog (https://shugerblog.com) Ethan Leib and Jed Shugerman, Fiduciary Constitutionalism and ‘Faithful Execution’: Two Legal Conclusions (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3177968) Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, "A Great Power of Attorney:" Understanding the Fiduciary Constitution (https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nxqpnj) Eric Muller, Even More on Self-Pardons (http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2018/06/more-on-self-pardons.html) (containing links to Eric's original post and to a critique by Michael McConnell) Special Guests: Ethan Leib and Jed Shugerman.

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

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

Jacob Weisberg is joined by Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham law school, to talk about the letter that leaked this past weekend wherein the president's lawyers all but admitted that he obstructed justice. Plus, what's the bigger game plan behind the leak and how can this effect Rod Rosenstein's oversight of the investigation? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jacob Weisberg is joined by Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham law school, to talk about the letter that leaked this past weekend wherein the president's lawyers all but admitted that he obstructed justice. Plus, what's the bigger game plan behind the leak and how can this effect Rod Rosenstein's oversight of the investigation? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, troublemaking and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, troublemaking and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

President Donald Trump tweeted choice words last weekend about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. Trump then added another lawyer to his team — Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who has spoken aggressively against the Russia investigation. Both moves concern many lawmakers, who worry Trump may actually find a means to have Mueller fired in an attempt to quash the examination. If Mueller is fired, has he positioned the investigation so it can continue without him? This and more is discussed in this episode of Politics & Polls as Fordham Law Professor Jed Shugerman joins the show. Note: This episode was recorded on March 14, 2018, before President Trump posted tweets calling out Mueller for the first time. That same day, an opinion piece by Shugerman and his colleague Ethan Leib appeared in the Washington Post (link below), explaining how a part of the Constitution could stop Trump from abusing his pardon power or from firing Mueller. They also published a piece in Slate (link below) arguing Sessions also may not fire Mueller. Jed Shugerman teaches at Fordham Law. He has a bachelor’s degree, a J.D., and a Ph.D. in American History from Yale University. He is the author of “The People's Courts: Pursuing Judicial Independence in America” (2012) on the evolution of judicial elections and politics in America. He is currently working on anti-corruption emoluments litigation against the Trump administration, and he is writing about American prosecutors, and the “faithfully execute” fiduciary limits on the executive branch. He writes about law and politics at shugerblog.com. Washington Post: http://bit.ly/2GaWBvo Slate: http://slate.me/2IGE74k

Several lawsuits are moving through the courts, claiming that the President has violated something called the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution. But what, precisely are these Emoluments Clauses? And how has the President allegedly violated them? We’ll speak with two experts, on opposite sides of the issue: Jed Shugerman of Fordham Law School, and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston.

Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham University Law School, and Ryan Goodman, a professor at NYU School of Law, discuss reports that former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos wrote in an email that top Trump campaign officials agreed to a pre-election meeting with representatives of Vladimir Putin. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law.

Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham University Law School, and Ryan Goodman, a professor at NYU School of Law, discuss reports that former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos wrote in an email that top Trump campaign officials agreed to a pre-election meeting with representatives of Vladimir Putin. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Josh Blackman and Jed Shugerman join the National Constitution Center’s Jeffrey Rosen to discuss President Trump’s alleged violation of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.

Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham University Law School, and Gene Healy, vice president at the Cato Institute, discuss special counsel Robert Mueller's recent move to use a Washington D.C. grand jury to dig deeper into Russian interference in the 2016 election. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham University Law School, and Gene Healy, vice president at the Cato Institute, discuss special counsel Robert Mueller's recent move to use a Washington D.C. grand jury to dig deeper into Russian interference in the 2016 election. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Dan Abrams moderates a debate between Fordham University Law Professor, Jed Shugerman and attorney, Ross Garber, Co-Chair of the Government Investigations Group at Shipman & Goodwin. The topic is whether there is sufficient legal grounds to impeach President Trump. The post Debate 1 – Is there a legal case to impeach President Trump? first appeared on Law & Crime.

Fordham University School of Law professors Andrew Kent and Jed Shugerman discuss attorney general Jeff Sessions' offer to testify before a public hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. They speak with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Fordham University School of Law professors Andrew Kent and Jed Shugerman discuss attorney general Jeff Sessions' offer to testify before a public hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. They speak with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Fordham University School of Law professors Andrew Kent and Jed Shugerman discuss attorney general Jeff Sessions' offer to testify before an public hearing of the Senate intelligence committee. They speak with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Fordham University School of Law professors Andrew Kent and Jed Shugerman discuss attorney general Jeff Sessions' offer to testify before an public hearing of the Senate intelligence committee. They speak with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Slate's Political Gabfest, featuring Emily Bazelon and special guests Beverly Gage of Yale and Jed Shugerman of Harvard. This week: The Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court, the political implications if the law is overturned, and a history of judicial elections Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices