Podcast appearances and mentions of judge alex kozinski

Topic: Columbia University & Antisemitism   Guest: David Schizer   Bio:    David M. Schizer served as a dean of the Law School from 2004 to 2014 and is one of the nation's leading tax scholars. His research also focuses on nonprofits, energy law, and corporate governance.He is the author of How to Save the World in Six (Not So Easy) Steps: Bringing Out the Best in Nonprofits. He is a founder and co-director of the Richard Paul Richman Center for Business, Law, and Public Policy, a founder and co-chair of the Center for Israeli Legal Studies, and a founder and co-chair of the Charles Evans Gerber Transactional Studies Center.  At 35, Schizer was the youngest dean in the Law School's history and the longest serving dean since 1971. During his tenure as dean, Schizer recruited 43 new faculty members, doubled the school's annual fundraising, led a $353 million capital campaign, helped the Law School navigate the financial crisis, oversaw the construction of Jerome Greene Hall's ninth floor, significantly reduced the school's student-faculty ratio, and forged a close relationship with Columbia Business School by introducing an accelerated J.D./MBA program and establishing the Richman Center. He launched centers and programs on national security, intellectual property, climate change, global legal transformation, Israeli law, and other cutting edge issues; fostered innovation in the upper-year curriculum; and increased support for students choosing careers in government and public interest organizations. In addition, Schizer developed partnerships, known as “Global Alliances,” with the University of Oxford, the University of Amsterdam, Sciences Po, and Paris I. Schizer has won the Willis L.M. Reese Prize for Excellence in Teaching and has served as a visiting professor at Yale, Harvard, and Georgetown. He also has taught at Tokyo University, Hebrew University, the Interdisciplinary Center in Herziliya, and Ono Academic College. Before joining the Law School faculty in 1998, Schizer was a law clerk for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg '59 on the U.S. Supreme Court. Schizer began his career in the tax department of Davis Polk & Wardwell. While on a three-year leave from the Law School from 2017 to 2019, Schizer served as executive vice president and CEO of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), a century-old international humanitarian organization. Schizer redesigned JDC's planning process to allocate its $360 million annual budget more strategically, lightened JDC's infrastructure, relied more on data and on other insights from the business world, increased and diversified JDC's philanthropic support, and raised the organization's public profile.  Schizer serves on the boards of the Ramaz School and the Columbia Law Review, and he also has served on the boards of other nonprofits, as well as public and privately-owned companies, including 92NY, Seacor Holdings Inc. (an NYSE-listed company), Feil Properties, and the owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer. In this powerful episode we discuss how David is co-leading the anti-semitism task force on campus.   On the heels of congressional hearings this week where David appeared, this is a can't miss episode.   ***For a complimentary copy of David's new book on non-profits send an email to IsraeliLegalStudies@law.columbia.edu   How to Save the World in Six (Not So Easy) Steps: Bringing Out the Best in Nonprofits  

THE SUPREME COURT WILL SOON DECIDE: If a social media censures you for your viewpoint - does that violate the First Amendment? If laws tell Social Media companies they must publish your viewpoint...is the company's First Amendment rights violated?We all say we want free speech. But if you own a private company can the government tell you what it can and cannot post?  Are social media companies the public square...common carriers...or...private companies that can choose their own content?That is the question before the Supreme Court. In this episode, Bob talks with Supreme Court scholar Eugene Volokh:Facts of the caseThe State of Texas enacted HB 20 to regulate large social media platforms, such as Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and YouTube. The law purports to prohibit large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Texas, challenging two provisions of the law as unconstitutional: (1) Section 7, which prohibits viewpoint-based censorship of users' posts, except for content that incites criminal activity or is unlawful. (2) Section 2, which requires platforms to disclose how they moderate and promote content, publish an "acceptable use policy," and maintain a complaint-and-appeal system for their users.The district court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that Section 7 and Section 2 are facially unconstitutional. The court argued that social media platforms have some level of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, and HB 20 interferes with that discretion. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, rejecting the idea that large corporations have a “freewheeling” First Amendment right to censor what people say. It reasoned that HB 20 does not regulate the platforms' speech but protects other people's speech and regulates the platforms' conduct.Question:Do Texas HB 20's provisions prohibiting social media platforms from censoring users' content and imposing stringent disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment?Our guest:Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (6th ed. 2016), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2013), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. His law review articles have been cited by opinions in eight Supreme Court cases and several hundred court opinions in total, as well as several thousand scholarly articles.

Hillary and Tina cover Judge Alex Kozinski. Judge Alex Kozinski, accused of sexual misconduct, remained hidden in the shadows for decades. BUT, the advent of #MeToo brought his actions into the spotlight. Hillary's Story CBS News Judge Alex Kozinski steps down after allegations of sexual misconduct (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-alex-kozinski-steps-down-after-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct/) Forbes He's Back. After Resigning, Federal Judge Accused of Sexual Harassment Returns As A Practitioner (https://www.forbes.com/sites/patriciagbarnes/2019/12/06/hes-back-after-resigning-federal-judge-accused-of-sexual-harassment-returns-as-a-practitioner/?sh=3bf01fde5388)--by Patricia Barnes Los Angeles Times Porn trial in L.A. is halted (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-12-me-kozinski12-story.html)--by Scott Glover NPR Federal Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski Accused Of Sexual Harassment (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/08/569559223/federal-appeals-judge-alex-kozinski-accused-of-sexual-harassment)--by Ina Jaffe Politico Federal appeals court judge steps down amid sexual misconduct probe (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/18/alex-kozinski-retire-sexual-misconduct-allegations-302251)--by Cristiano Lima Reuters Trump hires former 9th Circuit judge Kozinski for Twitter court fight (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-hires-former-9th-circuit-judge-kozinski-twitter-court-fight-2022-07-02/)--by Jacqueline Thomsen and Mike Scarcella Slate I Received Some of Kozinski's Infamous Gag List Emails. I'm Baffled by Kavanaugh's Responses to Questions About Them (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-kozinski-gag-list-emails-senate-hearings.html).--by Heidi Bond Wikipedia Alex Kozinski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski) Photos Alex Kozinski (https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/88555d2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1160x629+0+0/resize/1260x684!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fc1%2F58%2F4655e228421c9925acde0e090210%2F171218-alex-kozinski-ap-1160.jpg)--by J. David Ake from AP via Politico Brett Kavanaugh (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Associate_Justice_Brett_Kavanaugh_Official_Portrait_%28full_length%29.jpg/1024px-Associate_Justice_Brett_Kavanaugh_Official_Portrait_%28full_length%29.jpg)--by Fred Schilling/Public Domain via Wikipedia

I spent an amazing year clerking on the Ninth Circuit for Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, who could not have been a better boss. And after speaking to numerous clerks over the years, I believe that most enjoy positive clerkship experiences like mine. When law students and young lawyers ask for my opinion on clerking, I generally recommend it (depending on the individual's particular circumstances).But not every law clerk is as fortunate as I was. As we have learned in recent years, some clerks are subjected to harassment and abuse from the judges they clerk for. And because of judges' power and prestige, as well as structural problems that exempt the judiciary from most forms of workplace accountability, clerks often find themselves with nowhere to turn when mistreated by their judicial employers.Aliza Shatzman wants to change that. After being harassed and discriminated against by the judge for whom she clerked, she has become a leading advocate for greater judicial accountability and transparency. She has submitted testimony to Congress, written and spoken widely about these issues, and co-founded the Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit devoted to “ensur[ing] that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not.”I was pleased to welcome Aliza to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. We talked about her harrowing clerkship experience, the need to pass the Judiciary Accountability Act, why she launched the Legal Accountability Project, and the Project's current initiatives, including a centralized clerkships reporting database. You can listen to our conversation by clicking on the embed above.Show Notes:* Statement for the Record of Aliza Shatzman, Former DC Superior Court Law Clerk, House Judiciary Committee* The Conservative Case for the Judiciary Accountability Act, by Aliza Shatzman for the Harvard Journal on Legislation* Law schools are part of the problem—but they can (and should) be part of the solution, by Aliza Shatzman for the Yale Law & Policy Review* The Legal Accountability Project, official websitePrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* 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: Hello, and 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 by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the sixth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 28. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.One of the nice things about having your own podcast is the ability to cover topics that are important to you. One topic near and dear to my own heart is clerking. I have written about law clerks and judicial clerkships for years, dating back to my first blog, Underneath Their Robes, and my novel, Supreme Ambitions, is also set in the clerkship world.I had a wonderful experience clerking for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit, who continues to be a mentor and friend more than two decades after my clerkship, and I want every law clerk to have such a great experience. So I was pleased to welcome to the podcast Aliza Shatzman, co-founder and president of the Legal Accountability Project. The goal of the Project is to ensure that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not.Aliza is an attorney and advocate based in Washington, D.C. She graduated from Williams College and the Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza moved to Washington to clerk for a judge on the D.C. Superior Court. Unfortunately, she endured terrible harassment and abuse during her clerkship, as well as retaliation afterwards. She has shared her story—in congressional testimony, articles, and interviews like this one—in order to increase judicial accountability and transparency.As Aliza discusses, one reason it can be so hard to hold judges accountable for mistreating law clerks is the culture of “hero worship” that surrounds judges. And here I have a confession to make: I have definitely contributed to the culture of “judicial celebrity” over the years, which I have come to increasingly regret over time. Without further ado, here's my interview of Aliza Shatzman.DL: Thanks so much for joining me, Aliza!Aliza Shatzman: Thanks for having me on the show.DL: So let's start at the beginning, before we get into your work with the Legal Accountability Project. Why did you decide to go to law school?AS: I went to law school because I wanted to be a reproductive-rights litigator. I wanted to be a trial attorney at Planned Parenthood. I'd always had kind of a sense of moral outrage, particularly on injustices affecting women. Between college and law school, I took a couple of years—I interned and worked on the Hill, did some internships at Planned Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center, and was really just moved by some of the personal stories I heard. So I went to law school knowing I wanted to do public-interest work.DL: And you were at Wash U, I believe, for law school?AS: I was, yes. I was a transfer, so I spent my 1L year at UNC and then transferred to Wash U.DL: And did your plans change in law school in terms of what you wanted to do? It seems like you certainly wanted to stay in public interest, but did your interests shift?AS: They definitely did. Pretty early in law school, I got the prosecutor bug. I did four different internships with the Justice Department during law school, and then decided that I wanted to become a homicide prosecutor in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office.DL: And what did you do towards that end? You mentioned the internships—what did you do right after law school?AS: I decided to clerk in D.C. Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. I knew that D.C. AUSAs appeared before D.C. Superior Court judges, so I was really focused on clerking in that courthouse.DL: As I recall from some of your writing, and you've written quite a bit about your clerkship experience, you were initially pretty excited about it, right? And you had heard from professors or references or recommenders good things about the judge you were going to clerk for?AS: Yes, I was excited to launch my career, and definitely Wash U professors made calls on my behalf to help me secure the clerkship. I was definitely excited when I went into it, and the messaging at Wash U Law, like at most law schools, was uniformly positive. This was going to be a lifelong mentor-mentee relationship; the position was going to confer only professional benefits. Nobody back when I was applying for clerkships, or when I started my clerkship, talked about any potential downsides to clerking.DL: And of course it's also good for the law schools to send graduates into these prestigious positions.AS: Indeed it is. They report those clerkship numbers publicly in a variety of fashions, and especially with similarly ranked schools, it goes to their ability to get the most competitive applicants to law school and the best professors who come with their own clerkship networks and relationships with the judiciary. So the relationship between the judiciary and law schools is very closely intertwined in a way that I don't think I fully realized until I started writing and speaking about this.DL: That's so true, and I would also add: applicants are much more savvy than say I was. When I went to law school, I didn't even really know what a clerkship was. But I get calls every year from people who are thinking about law school and a lot of them will ask, “Oh, if I want a clerk, is this a good law school for that?” People are more aware than they were maybe when you were in law school, and certainly when I was in law school, about the value professionally and as a credential of a clerkship.AS: Definitely. I would caution that the law schools that report the highest number of clerks per year are not necessarily the ones most focused on ensuring a positive clerkship experience. And this is based on a lot of conversations with law schools, a lot of conversations with students. But yes, there is a huge push toward clerking. And even now, I'm not dissuading anybody from clerking in the work I'm doing now. It's really about ensuring a positive clerkship experience. And that is different for every student. That is different for every applicant. There is no one-size-fits-all model, and I remain concerned that law schools are just trying to funnel students into as many clerkships as possible.DL: Yes. Weren't you told when you were applying to accept the first clerkship you were offered because this is such a plum position?AS: I absolutely was. And there are still law schools that are giving that advice, which is bad advice, and some have backed off it in recent years, maybe because I'm poking at them and telling them to stop giving that advice. I was told to apply broadly, across the U.S. and across the political spectrum, and to accept the first clerkship I was offered. I did all those things. I should not have done those things, but I did.DL: That brings us to your clerkship in D.C. Superior Court. I think some of my—or many of my—listeners might be familiar with your experience. But for those who are not, can you talk about it?AS: Definitely. I think it's important to share my experience. My experience is not rare, but it is one that is rarely shared publicly, and every clerkship application cycle, so much ink is spilled, so many statements are made, to highlight the best of circumstances. Nobody's talking about the worst of circumstances.I started this clerkship in D.C. Superior Court in August 2019, and just weeks into it, the judge for whom I clerked began to harass me and discriminate against me because of my gender. He would kick me out of the courtroom, telling me I made him “uncomfortable” and he “just felt more comfortable” with my male co-clerk. He told me I was “bossy” and “aggressive” and had “personality issues.” The day I found out I passed the D.C. bar exam—a big day in my life—he called me into his chambers, got in my face and said, “You're bossy. And I know bossy because my wife is bossy.”DL: Oh my gosh. You would've thought, “Congratulations on passing the bar!”AS: I think he also said, “I didn't think you'd pass.”DL: Oh my gosh. Wow.AS: Yeah, I'm painting a picture of this judge. I was just devastated. I remember crying in the courthouse bathroom, crying myself to sleep at night. This was my first legal job out of law school. This judge just seemed to be singling me out for mistreatment. I wished I could be reassigned to another judge. My workplace didn't have an employee dispute resolution or “EDR” plan that might have enabled that to happen. I did confide in some attorney mentors and some other clerks, who advised me to stick it out, and I knew that I needed a year of work experience to be eligible to apply to the U.S. Attorney's Office. So I really tried to.DL: So you were just going forward, crying in the bathroom, putting up with this abuse and harassment, but the best advice—or not the best, but the advice you were given—was, just keep on trucking?AS: Yes, that's correct.DL: Okay, and then what happened?AS: Pandemic happened. March 2020, I moved back to Philly to stay with my parents and worked remotely, and the judge basically ignored me for six weeks, before he called me up and told me he was ending my clerkship early because I made him “uncomfortable” and “lacked respect” for him, but he “didn't want to get into it.” Then he hung up on me.DL: Oh my gosh. So he did that. Just fired you over the phone. Wow. He did not even give you the courtesy of meeting in person. And also I think you mentioned in one of the pieces you wrote that in the lead-up to this, weren't you sending him things like orders and other drafts to look at, and he wouldn't respond to you, he would respond to your co clerk?AS: Yes. Yes.DL: That's crazy. AS: It was pretty bad. I reached out to the D.C. Courts' HR. They said there's nothing they could do because HR doesn't regulate judges, judges and law clerks have a unique relationship, and then they asked me whether I knew that I was an at-will employee. So then I reached out to my law school, Wash U, for support and advice, and I found out the judge had a history of harassing his clerks, which law school officials, including several professors, and the clerkships director, who still works there, knew about at the time I accepted the clerkship. But they decided not to share that with me, I guess, because they wanted another Wash U law student to clerk.DL: Wow. Now this is something we'll return to, but when you were applying for clerkships, did you have access to evaluations or reports about this judge in the Wash U. clerkships office that might have told you about these bad experiences?AS: I did not. Wash U does not conduct a post-clerkship survey. At the time, I did not even know whether they had a list of former clerks who clerked for this judge or others, so they are far behind others in the T20 [top 20 law schools] in this regard.DL: I remember, when I was at Yale, there were these lists of clerks, former clerks, to different judges. You could look them up, and there were evaluations. And we'll return to this—the evaluations were almost uniformly positive because anyone could walk in and look at them, and if you wrote a scathing report, that probably would not be a great thing. But they were there. And I remember sometimes you could read between the lines, and maybe detect something less effusive, but they were mostly positive.AS: Yep. Your alma mater might push back on that, but you are correct. Most of the reports are positive. Yes. DL: Fair enough. Let's go back to where you've been left in this process, and HR says they can't help you, and your law school can't help you. What did you do next?AS: I reached out to some other D.C. judges who connected me with the commission where I ultimately filed my judicial complaint. I wrote it, but I wanted to wait to find a new job because I was worried the judge would retaliate against me. It took me about a year to get back on my feet. I secured my dream job in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office and moved back to D.C. in the summer of 2021, intending to launch my career as a prosecutor and, I hoped, put all this behind me. I had not been in touch with the judge, and I was hoping to move forward.DL: And I think he had said at some point to you that he would give you a neutral reference if asked?AS: Yes. That's correct.DL: You're at the U.S. Attorney's Office. This is your dream job. This is what you had wanted to do in law school. This is why you clerked for the D.C. Superior Court, to get this job. It seems like everything is going great, right?AS: For a couple weeks. Security clearance seemed to be taking a little bit longer than it should have, which was a red flag. But I was two weeks into training, I'd already started working there, they'd given me all the materials—and I received some pretty devastating news that altered the course of my life. I was told that the judge had made negative statements about me during my background investigation, I wouldn't be able to obtain a security clearance, and my job offer was being revoked.DL: Wow…. And then what did you do next? Did you have any ability to push back or explain or say, look, this was a really biased and unfair review or assessment?AS: I called HR, I called management at the D.C. U.S.A.O. and they said there was nothing they could do, that the decision was final. I absolutely tried to explain. I cried on the phone. I ultimately filed a FOIA request, which was denied in full, even though it was a reference about me that led to the denial of my security clearance. I actually was offered the opportunity a couple days later to interview for another job with that office, and then they revoked that too, based on the judge's same negative reference. At this point, I was two years into my legal career, and this judge just seemed to have enormous power to ruin my reputation and destroy my career.So I filed a judicial complaint with the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. That is a regulatory body for D.C. judges. I hired attorneys and in the summer, in fall of 2021, participated in the investigation into the now-former judge, and we were partway through that when I found out separately that the judge was on administrative leave pending an investigation into other misconduct. At the time he had filed this negative reference, but the U.S.A.O. really was not alerted to the circumstances surrounding that negative reference until January 2022, when pursuant to the terms of our private settlement agreement, separate from anything the judiciary can or would do for a law clerk, the former judge issued a clarifying statement addressing some but not all of his outrageous claims. But by then, the damage had been done. It had been way too long, and I was pretty much blackballed from what I thought was my dream job.DL: Wow. Now, I think you wrote at some point that you did see some of the content of the negative reference—how did you get that? You mentioned your FOIA request was denied.AS: I have a copy of the negative reference, through private settlement negotiations between my attorneys and the then-judge's. I am enormously grateful for everything my attorneys did for me. Were it not for them, I would never have seen this outrageous negative reference, and most law clerks in my position are not fortunate enough to be able to hire attorneys to pursue this type of a claim.DL: I'm curious, this is maybe a bit of a digression, but whom did you hire? It's not like “clerkship abuse” is a practice area. Were these employment lawyers, did they have experience with the judiciary, how did you even know where to turn?AS: Great question. I found my attorneys through a high-profile person in the movement to prevent harassment in the judiciary. She let me use her name. Gave me a list. I started calling through it. It was a large employment litigation shop that does this type of work—not this type of work specifically, but they were fantastic. I'm really grateful for them.DL: So you reached an agreement with the judge. Were you then able to move on with your life professionally? What happened after that?AS: Sort of. I agreed not to identify the judge by name. That is why I refer to him as “the former judge.” He agreed to issue a clarifying statement to the U.S.A.O. addressing some of the claims in the reference. I reapplied to the U.S.A.O., but they definitely did not want anything to do with me. So I found a new job as a family law attorney and thought I would pursue that work.But during the summer when I was going through the judicial misconduct investigation, I became aware of the Judiciary Accountability Act, or “JAA,” which is legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks. Currently, folks like me cannot sue our harassers and seek damages for harms done to our lives. So I reached out to a bunch of House and Senate offices involved with that bill to share my story, advocate for the legislation, advocate for an amendment to cover the D.C. courts, which are Article I courts and are currently not covered under the bill. And then a House Judiciary hearing occurred in March of 2022, and I was invited to submit written testimony advocating for the bill, sharing my story. And then I got involved in the weeks and months following that [with] further advocacy work around these issues. Eventually I launched the non-profit in June.DL: I would recommend to people that they check out your testimony. I put it in the show notes. It's very powerful, very detailed. It identifies the problem and talks about possible solutions. In a nutshell—you talked a little bit about it just now—what would the Judiciary Accountability Act do?AS: The JAA, H.R. 4827 and S. 2553, is such important legislation. It would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, but it would do a lot of other important things too. It would clarify that Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which defines judicial misconduct, includes discrimination, harassment, retaliation—currently it doesn't even say that. It would specify that judges who retire, resign, or die amid a misconduct investigation—those [inquiries] won't cease. Currently they do. Some of the most notorious harassers, like former Judge [Alex] Kozinski, step down amid a misconduct investigation, and the judiciary loses jurisdiction over them.It would also standardize employee dispute resolution or EDR plans in the federal courthouses. Courts are theoretically required to follow the EDR plan, but they each implement it a little bit differently. And then it would also impose some really important data collection requirements on the federal judiciary, requiring them to collect and publicly report the results of a workplace culture assessment. They have been just notoriously unwilling to do that until very recently. It would require more transparency around the judicial misconduct complaints. When a judge is adjudicated to have committed misconduct, currently, if you go on the U.S. Courts website, their names are redacted. They are not searchable. It would increase transparency in that. It would also require the judiciary to report data on the lack of diversity in law clerk and federal public defender hiring. The real dearth of data in these spaces has allowed judges to get away with misconduct for decades.DL: This legislation seems like a very important part of the solution. Was your suggestion that it be amended to include D.C. Superior Court and similar courts accepted? Is that now part of the proposed legislation?AS: It's not yet—a Senate hearing would help to revisit this and other issues. It's definitely under consideration. I was told that it was more an oversight than anything else. So, I'm hopeful.DL: What is the status of the JAA right now? Are you optimistic about its chances of passage?AS: It's kind of stalled in Congress. It has 26 co-sponsors in the House, one Republican, six co-sponsors in the Senate, no Republicans yet, but I think that really does not—I know that does not represent the broad swath of folks interested in this legislation. It just needs some sustained attention and a Senate hearing. I always caution that we can't only talk about these issues when there's a flashy hearing. At the same time, I've been told that [a hearing] would garner additional co-sponsors, so it's really important.It's a bipartisan issue. Both Democratic and Republican judicial appointees harass their clerks, both liberal and conservative clerks face mistreatment. The federal judiciary leadership is a weirdly powerful lobby, and they are vociferously opposed to this bill. They have been since 1995, when Title VII was extended to the other two branches. It just needs some sustained attention. Congress has a lot going on every year, but I'm going to keep poking at them about this bill, about a Senate hearing. It's so important. Law clerks absolutely cannot wait another year for these urgently needed reforms. It's outrageous that law clerks are uniquely exempt from Title VII.DL: Why is it that it has so much less support on the Republican side of the aisle? I agree with you that it doesn't seem like it should be a partisan issue.AS: It just doesn't have enough folks lobbying Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees right now, which was part of the point of my article with the Harvard Journal on Legislation, The Conservative Case for the JAA. I have been reaching out to Republican offices to talk about the bill, and they are receptive and interested. House Republicans during the March 2022 hearing seemed receptive as well, at least to the Title VII protections. I'm a little worried they might want to sever the bill and deal with the Title VII protections now and handle other things later, which I don't think they should do. It just has a lack of support generally, and if we got more Dems we might get more Republicans too. It's a question of putting someone's personal face and story on abstract issues and giving this bill sustained attention.DL: Absolutely. And your testimony did that. And several other women came forward as well and offered testimony. There has been media coverage, so it is starting to get traction. But I guess we'll see what happens in January or in the new session.AS: The lack of people willing to come out and speak publicly on this issue makes it more challenging because judiciary leadership likes to claim these issues are not pervasive in the courts. And I think House and Senate Republicans, probably some House and Senate Democrats too, think similarly, because there's just a dearth of folks willing to share their stories publicly. My story is definitely not rare, but it is certainly rarely shared. And there is just a real culture of fear and silence, one of deifying judges and disbelieving law clerks. I think we're in a better position now than we were in 2018 or 2020, when two previous hearings occurred on these issues. But we still have a long way to go.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. What do you say to arguments that the judge-clerk relationship is a unique relationship and there are duties of clerk confidentiality? There were certainly clerks who, for example, wanted to report allegations against Judge Kozinski, but they were worried about violating the duty of confidentiality. What do you say to people who say this is going to undermine that, that special relationship that makes a clerkship such a great mentorship experience for so many?AS: The judiciary has taken some steps to clarify that the duty of confidentiality does not deal with workplace issues, and anybody who is mistreated can and should report that. Perhaps it is a unique relationship, but I think a clerkship should be considered a job like any other, and the judges should be considered employers running a small workplace. What makes it a unique job is that judges have outsized influence over their former clerks' lives, careers, and reputations, and that this first legal job for many folks has outsized influence over their future career success, which makes it particularly important that we address these issues and particularly important that the next generation of young attorneys are protected from mistreatment.DL: Another point you've made in your writings is at least for the Article III judges, there's life tenure, so in some ways they have even more protection than members of Congress or the president. They're not responsible to the voters. And also they're in some ways more low-profile. Even if there's a kind of hero worship or celebrity worship of judges, at the end of the day, they're not as famous as, say, U.S. senators—so they can probably get away with a lot more, I would guess.AS: Absolutely, they can and they do. Continuing to exempt judges from Title VII and conferring upon them life tenure really sends the message that they're untouchable, that they're above the laws they enforce. They shouldn't be. And definitely life tenure contributes to these problematic behaviors.There's a lack of accountability in the judiciary. Judges are never disciplined. Complaints are rarely filed to begin with. It is a broken system, and I think the JAA and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which is the federal complaint process whereby a clerk can complain about a judge, are really the floor and not the ceiling for judicial accountability legislation. And I would just underscore for anybody who thinks my story is rare or particularly outrageous, it is definitely not, and judges are empowered to get away with outrageous misconduct. And what keeps law clerks silent, what keeps them from filing any sort of complaint, is that they fear that what happened to me will happen to them. That is how judges, some judges, the misbehaving ones, lord their power over their clerks, which is really troubling. It's definitely not all judges. There are lots of wonderful judges who reach out to me to extend their support for what I'm doing and thank me. But these issues are unaddressed in both the state and federal courts, and I'm really hoping that judiciary leadership takes it seriously.DL: What about the argument that the judiciary can police itself and that things like the JAA are threats to judicial independence and the separation of powers?AS: Internal self-policing leads to a lack of policing, and any attempts at internal self-discipline really lead to a lack of discipline. I remain enormously troubled that all judicial accountability mechanisms are run by other judges in the courthouse or the circuit where the complainant law clerk and the misbehaving judge work. Judges are notoriously unwilling to discipline their colleagues. Even when they see misconduct occurring, they're notoriously unwilling to even pull a judge aside and say something.The judicial independence argument is kind of nonsense. We are not talking about suing judges for their rulings, something I would not support. We are saying that judges are employers running a workplace like any other, like the other two branches of government, those are employers. When employees are mistreated, they can sue and seek damages. We're just talking about treating judges like other employers.DL: Have we seen any disasters result from the fact that other governmental entities are subject to suit for workplace violations?AS: Not at all. And part of it is just it sends the right message to say that you are an employer, you are subject to Title VII, you are an employee, you are protected by it. We have not seen any downstream negative consequences from extending Title VII to the other two branches of government.DL: Your testimony was in March 2022, this year, and then in June you started the Legal Accountability Project. Can you tell us what that is about?AS: Sure. So the Legal Accountability Project basically seeks to ensure that law clerks have a positive clerkship experience and then extends support and resources to the ones who don't. I think of the nonprofit as the resource I wish existed as a Wash U law student applying for a clerkship, a law clerk facing harassment and unsure where to go for help, and a former clerk engaging in the formal judicial complaint process. And we're working on a couple of major initiatives in collaboration with law schools beginning this year, and I think that law schools have historically received a free pass in the conversation about judicial accountability and that they should be the first to step forward and make some changes to protect the next generation of folks.DL: You have a couple of projects or initiatives you're working at the Project—can you talk about some of them that you're rolling out this fall?AS: Absolutely. So the Legal Accountability Project is basically premised on gaps that I see in the clerkship application process, a lack of standardization, a lack of transparency, as well as larger issues related to a lack of accountability in our judiciary. So I speak to a lot of law students and I'll say, “So you want to clerk? Great. How would you avoid judges who harass their clerks?” Some might say, “I'd ask someone,” but who are you going to ask? Clerkship directors and deans tell students to “do their research,” but what research are they going to do when so little information about judges is available on an equitable basis?The major initiative we're working on this year is a centralized clerkships reporting database, which is going to democratize information about judges so students considering a clerkship have as much info about as many judges as possible before they make what is clearly a really important decision about their careers. It's basically a better version of the post-clerkship survey that a handful of schools do already internally. As you and I talked about earlier, the schools that do them recognize they're mostly positive reports in there. What I try to tell schools is no school has a monopoly on information about judges. Every school has a ceiling on the number of judges they can keep track of, and it totally depends on who their alumni have clerked for in the past.We are going to have law clerk alumni from participating schools create an account with us and write a report about their judge and their clerkship—good, bad, medium, we want to hear everything—and our questions elucidate lots of information you might want to know before clerking. Certainly mistreatment is something we seek to capture in a way that law schools are not doing right now, but it's also how does the judge provide feedback, do I get writing and courtroom experience, can I take vacation? All kinds of stuff you might want to know about your boss and your job, most of which is just not available to students right now.Law clerk alumni report into the database. It's a subscription model, so law schools pay us $5 per student per year based on their total J.D. enrollment, and then in exchange, law students get access to reading the reports. But why it's better than anything law schools do right now [is that applicants] don't just get to read their [own school's] alumni reports. They read the reports of all the alumni from all the schools participating in database. I am confident this is the best way to infuse transparency into the opaque clerkship application process and protect the next generation of attorneys against harassment.DL: It sounds really useful. It's a resource I would've wanted to have when I was applying for clerkships. Are you going to require clerks to put their names in? Because obviously, as we know from your case, retaliation can be a problem. But if the clerks are[] anonymous, is there a fear of false reports? And what about if students want to get in touch with somebody for further discussion? Can people be anonymous?AS: Yes, law clerks can report anonymously. There is an option on the last page: would you like to provide your name to students considering this clerkship? We anticipate that the law clerks who face mistreatment will report anonymously, and that is one of many reasons why a lot of law-clerk alumni like this. They also feel an increased sense of anonymity because there are just more people reporting in from more schools in a way. I talk to students and alums from schools that do a post-clerkship survey and they say, I would not fill out my school's, I don't feel sufficiently anonymous, I would fill out yours.Your question about false reports—we do not have a culture of false allegations against judges. We have a culture of fear and gross underreporting. I'm not at all concerned about false allegations. We do obviously have a privacy policy, and law clerks are signing off that they will report truthfully. I am confident they will. I think students and alumni understand this is a desperately needed resource, and if there were false reports or folks misusing the database, it could no longer exist.What you talked about with the clerk-to-student information sharing is often referred to as the “clerkships whisper network.” This is inefficient at best and ineffective at worst, and that the folks who have the information, it often does not get shared with the folks who need. We are not saying you should not reach out to former clerks. What we are saying is that it is an inefficient system, and for law clerks who face mistreatment, they typically do a couple things. They either don't report that back to their law schools, or they take themselves off the list of alumni to be contacted for clerkships, or they do respond to requests, but they are re-traumatized every time somebody reaches out, or they just don't share the full information. Those are all issues we're seeking to combat. Instead of those things, the mistreated clerk can take 10 minutes, fill out our post-clerkship survey once, and then never have to be contacted again. So we think it's better.DL: Again, I think it's a great resource and a great idea. Are you worried about—again, I think this would be unlikely because it's sort of like the Streisand Effect, it would just draw more attention—but are you worried about a judge, say, finding out about this and then suing the Project to try and either unmask this person or get a retraction or, I don't know what….AS: A couple things. This is not a public-access website. The only people who will have access to reading the reports are students from participating law schools and young alums from those law schools. Law clerk alumni get write-only access. They write a report, they can't read them. Part of the privacy policy is that you cannot screenshot this, you cannot share this with folks who do not have access. We are not worried about defamation because we will have Section 230 immunity. We are just posting what people want to write. They can write seven paragraphs, they can write my judge was nice, we're just posting what they write.Judges actually support this. They reach out to me a lot to convey their private support. We're hoping to turn that into public support very soon. Judges understand that positive reviews in the database will bolster not only their reputations, but also their clerkship applicant pools, because what I see is it's historically marginalized groups, women, non-white folks, LGBTQ folks, who face the brunt of mistreatment during these clerkships, and either decide not to apply or they apply less broadly because they just don't have the info they need. I receive a lot of outreach from LGBTQ students asking who are the friendly judges to apply to, who are the not-so-friendly ones to avoid? I have to say we don't have that info yet, but we will. Judges like this. I know it's a disproportionate sample of folks who reach out to say, I support you and I'm a judge, and probably the ones who hate this are going to be quiet. It should be a red flag if any judges are out there publicly opposing this because there must be reasons why they do. And look, the thing is, we are doing what a handful of schools, including your alma mater, already do internally. Judges know which schools have a database. They bring them up and they don't make us think about that because they know that most other employers, in most other professions, are reviewed. Why should they be uniquely not subject to any reviews?DL: What is the status of the database—when will it go live, when will people start to be able to access these reports?AS: The database is a working prototype right now, and our engineers are building the final product. Law clerk alumni will begin reporting into it this winter, and it will go live in spring 2023 for students from participating schools considering clerkships. And for folks who think this is a good idea, if you are a law student or an attorney, reach out to your law school and encourage them to partner with us. Most administrations are considering this right now, and we think student and alumni support is going to make a difference everywhere.DL: I think people should, if they're interested in this resource, let their school know that the school should sign up for it if it hasn't already. Before we go, I was wondering if you could also talk about what the Project is working on in terms of the culture assessment?AS: Yes, we are doing a workplace culture assessment of the federal and state judiciaries. It's a climate survey that's finally going to answer the question, “How pervasive is harassment in the judiciary?” The federal judiciary has just been notoriously unwilling to do this until very recently. [After] five years of advocates poking at them, they finally agreed to do one, but they've specifically not committed to reporting the results publicly, which I think is an enormous red flag.We are surveying both state and federal clerks from a variety of institutions. In addition to standard climate-survey-type questions, we're also asking a section of questions that is particularly important, and it's about law clerk concerns about reporting formally to the judiciary, informally to their law schools. The federal judiciary likes to claim that these issues are not pervasive, yet they have conducted no type of workplace assessment that would show that.Unfortunately, a handful of law school clerkship directors and deans say things to me like, “We're blessed to work with only good judges in this circuit! All our alumni have a positive experience!” That is nonsense. But the dearth of folks reporting back to their law schools right now means that they can kind of disclaim responsibility, so we're seeking to quantify that as well for some challenging clerkship directors and some challenging judiciary officials.DL: When do you expect the assessment to be available?AS: We're not going to send it out until summer of 2023, so a little while. We're trying to focus on the database. We overshot our timelines a bit for getting schools on board, so our full effort goes toward that right now. But I've been heartened by the very positive response from the vast majority of law schools who are very willing to engage, and I appreciate that.It's the right time. Advocates over the past couple years have really laid the groundwork, and now it's time to make changes to protect the next generation of young attorneys. Law schools are working in good faith with me and I appreciate that, but no school is doing an adequate job of protecting their students and alumni against mistreatment right now. We are offering them concrete solutions for radically under-addressed issues, and I hope everybody considers partnering with us this year.We're definitely facing a first-mover problem. Everybody's looking around and seeing who's partnering with us. That's the first question we get from every dean, who else is doing this? Somebody's got to be first. There are a couple of really brave deans and clerkship directors who I'm optimistic will be leaders.DL: I think, just based on having observed the legal profession for so long, that they're like lemmings. Once you get one or two or three, especially if they're big-name schools, you'll get many. You just need—it's like what just happened with these U.S. News rankings and Yale and Harvard—you just need somebody to do it. So you're working on a first mover, but you don't have one just yet?AS: We're very optimistic about a couple. We're not ready to announce them, but we feel very good.DL: Well, in closing, Aliza, I'm so thankful for your time and insight. For people who want to reach out to you to help out with the Project or to tap into resources, what's the best way for them to either contact you or get in touch with the Project?AS: Our website is legalaccountabilityproject dot org, and my email is Aliza dot Shatzman at legalaccountabilityproject dot org. I receive a lot of outreach from current and former clerks. I always appreciate that. Please reach out, learn more, support us. We're recording this the day before Giving Tuesday, so it's a good time to support us.DL: You are a 501(c)(3)?AS: We are working on it. We will be in a few weeks.DL: Excellent. Well, anyway, thank you so much for your time, your insight, and all of the work you're doing on these very important issues. A lot of us really appreciate what you're doing.AS: Thank you.DL: Thanks again to Aliza, who is doing very important work. Reasonable minds can disagree on the details of specific reform proposals, but everyone who cares about the judiciary should care about the workplace treatment of law clerks.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 14. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. 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

The first part of today's podcast is hard truths that we all must face…beware calls to violence! Second, a quick after-action report on Wyoming Tactical's absolutely excellent Long Range Shooting class. MichaelBane.TV - On the Radio episode # 133. Scroll down for reference links on topics discussed in this episode. Disclaimer: The statements and opinions expressed here are our own and may not represent those of the companies we represent or any entities affiliated to it. Host: Michael Bane Producer: Flying Dragon Ltd. More information and reference links: Judge Alex Kozinski's Dissent Wyoming Tactical https://www.wyotac.com https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Wyoming%20Tactical Tactical Solutions International The Perfect AR-10 Creeps Toward Completion/TRIGGERED Video Wilson Combat Faxon Firearms Shooting Illustrated/Kevin Creighton I.C.E. Training/Rob Pincus S&W CEO Returns AntiGun Politician's Fire/TTAG The Music of The Civil War — Original Soundtrack The Music of the Mgagnificent Sevenths

A conversation about free speech with UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh Topics Computer engineering vs lawSCOTUS LeakBackground of free speechTwitter and free speechAre platforms utilities?The Ministry of Truth Disinformation BoardAnd more! Bio (from UCLA Law)Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (6th ed. 2016), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2013), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. His law review articles have been cited by opinions in eight Supreme Court cases and several hundred court opinions in total, as well as several thousand scholarly articles.Volokh worked for 12 years as a computer programmer. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. Volokh was born in the USSR; his family emigrated to the U.S. when he was seven years old. LinksThe Volokh Conspiracy,Free speech videosnarrativemonopoly.comtwitter   

Good evening friends:Many are wondering whether Disney has a claim against Florida for retaliation under the First Amendment? On the latest episode of Summarily—a podcast for busy lawyers—First Amendment expert, Professor Eugene Volokh, explains retaliation theory.    Professor Volokh teaches First Amendment at the UCLA School of Law and instructs law students in the School's First Amendment amicus brief clinic. Professor Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit.  He can read Professor Volokh's recent pieces about First Amendment retaliation here, here, and here.  Please share Summarily and this e-mail with your friends and colleagues. If you have any questions about the show, contact me at summarilypod@gmail.com. And please don't forget to subscribe/follow the podcast so you don't miss timely appellate updates and legal news.Thank you for listening!Robert Scavone Jr. Follow me on LinkedIn.  

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh joins Tim to talk about a unique way to approach Big Tech and its increasing exercise of power and control over the national dialogue. It's the “common carrier” approach. In this episode, Eugene gives his thoughts on the First Amendment and Big Tech. This episode is part of our increased focus this year on your right to freedom of speech. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Common_Carrier_auphonic.mp3 Over the past several months, Washington has been grappling with what to do about Big Tech and its role in the national discussion. More to the point, as more digital companies exert power and control over what is permitted and not permitted to be discussed on their platforms, many questions arise. How should Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act apply? Or more to the point, should Big Tech firms continue to be immune from certain legal actions for content that is allowed? Should digital platforms that decide what content is allowed or not allowed be treated as publishers, like newspapers or news websites? Should antitrust law come to play to break up some of these firms that are so large, it is nearly impossible for a viable competitor to emerge? Or, is there another way? Links Eugene Volokh, UCLA Bio The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason.com The Volokh Conspiracy, Facebook Volokh Conspiracy, Twitter U.S. Statute - 47 USC Section 230 - Telecommunications Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material, FindLaw About this Episode's Guest Eugene Volokh Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught criminal law, copyright law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed. 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2016), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute; a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel; and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a Weblog that was hosted by the Washington Post and is now at Reason Magazine. In addition to his academic work, he has also filed briefs in more than 125 appellate cases throughout the country since 2013, and has argued in over 30 federal and state appellate cases.

How has free speech changed in the past 50 years? What do the First Amendment's protections look like in the modern era? On this weeks episode, we're talking with Eugene Volokh, a prominent First Amendment law professor at UCLA. Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed. 2020), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2013), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and co-author of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. His law review articles have been cited by opinions in eight Supreme Court cases and hundreds of other court opinions, as well as several thousand scholarly articles. Volokh worked for 12 years as a computer programmer.

What do we mean when we say "The First Amendment"? Well, it's obvious: we mean the most robust protection of speech rights, religious liberty, freedom of the press, and freedom of association in the world today. Correct, says Eugene Volokh, absolutely correct. But it could change! Listen to this illuminating conversation with one of the country's leading experts on freedom of speech and constitutional law. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA, and an expert on free speech law, tort law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes, The Religion Clauses and Related Statutes (2005), and Academic Legal Writing (4th ed. 2010), as well as over 75 law review articles and over 80 op-eds. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of a legal blog and discussion forum, The Volokh Conspiracy. 

The cultural whirlwind of #MeToo has reached the judiciary, reluctantly bringing Dahlia Lithwick into the fray along with it. In a piece for Slate, she detailed her firsthand experiences with Judge Alex Kozinski. Dahlia’s was one of many accounts that that have now surfaced. Heid Bond was one of the first women prepared to go on the record. A former clerk to Judge Kozinski, she now writes romance novels under the name Courtney Milan. You can read Bond’s piece here and Judge Kozinski’s statement here. We speak with three of Kozinski’s accusers—Heidi Bond, Emily Murphy, and Leah Litman—and hear their ideas about what needs to change to allow women to work safely and successfully in a system often shrouded in secrecy. Then Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern for a run through the headline arguments and decisions from the Supreme Court in 2017 and a look ahead at what to expect in 2018.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to Slate.com/amicusplus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The cultural whirlwind of #MeToo has reached the judiciary, reluctantly bringing Dahlia Lithwick into the fray along with it. In a piece for Slate, she detailed her firsthand experiences with Judge Alex Kozinski. Dahlia’s was one of many accounts that that have now surfaced. Heid Bond was one of the first women prepared to go on the record. A former clerk to Judge Kozinski, she now writes romance novels under the name Courtney Milan. You can read Bond’s piece here and Judge Kozinski’s statement here. We speak with three of Kozinski’s accusers—Heidi Bond, Emily Murphy, and Leah Litman—and hear their ideas about what needs to change to allow women to work safely and successfully in a system often shrouded in secrecy. Then Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern for a run through the headline arguments and decisions from the Supreme Court in 2017 and a look ahead at what to expect in 2018.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to Slate.com/amicusplus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Title inspired by the song by The Jezabels that I use for the introduction to my show. I plan to orient a discussion of a few of this week's stories around this theme. Show discussing news, politics and culture from an Individualist perspective. Hosted by Amy Peikoff.

This week we're joined by Courtney Milan, an award-winning and bestselling author of historical and contemporary romance. Her most recent release, Hamilton's Battalion is a trio of short romances set during the Revolutionary War written with Alyssa Cole and Rose Lerner. We chat about her fabulous story in Hamilton's Battalion and how she developed two such interesting characters. Other fun highlights from our wide ranging conversation include: Her fascinating journey from math degree to theoretical physical chemistry to law school to law clerk to law professor to romance author (!). -She decided she was bad at writing when she started college, and was fascinated by math, so she majored in math. One of my favorite quotes from this episode: "I ended up not being able to disprove all of modern mathematics, but I did have a lot of fun!" -As a lawyer, she served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, and others before becoming a law professor. The reactions from the law community to her writing romance ranged from heartwarming (Justice Kennedy!) to infuriating. -We dig in to her intriguing writing process, which she describes as chaotic, like building a snowflake from the outside edges in. Listen as Sarah and I start to twitch when she describes how she handwrites everything! -How her editor has to give instructions a specific way because Courtney can't be told what to do. -How she essentially trained herself to like olives--and how that strategy didn't work with dark beer. After sitting across from Courtney for an hour, it was clear that she is brilliant, humble, and kind...but what we didn't learn until last week is just how brave she is. In the episode, she references a federal judge who forbid her from reading romance novels during her dinner break. Last week she came forward with five other women to expose Judge Alex Kozinski's sexual misconduct while she was working for him as a clerk. The Washington Post broke the story, but Courtney's own statement is powerful and worth a read. Standing up and exposing behavior like that takes incredible courage. Courtney has cemented herself as not only one of our favorite authors, but now one of our feminist heroines. Regrettably, we didn't talk about Courtney's adorable dog, Pele, but if you follow her on Twitter, you can see all the pictures! She can also be found on her website or on Facebook. *Books mentioned in this episode: Hamilton's Battalion by Courtney Milan, Alyssa Cole, and Rose Lerner A Civil Campaign by Lois McMaster Bujold Georgette Hayer Regency romances Thunder and Roses by Mary Joe Putney Serving Pleasure by Alisha Rai The Killing Moon by N.K. Jemisin *The above links will take you to The Ripped Bodice website where you have the option to purchase the print books from the only exclusively romance bookstore in the US. We love them--please consider showing your support to such a wonderful small business! If you're in the LA area, definitely go and visit the store--it's magical! Special thanks to our Editor, Chris Willett!

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is one of the most polarizing Supreme Court cases of all time. So what is it actually about, and why did the Justices decide the way they did? Justice Anthony Kennedy, often called the “most powerful man in America,” wrote the majority opinion in the case. In this episode, we examine Kennedy’s singular devotion to the First Amendment and look at how it may have influenced his decision in the case.  The key voices: Kai Newkirk, 99 Rise  Michael Boos, vice president and general counsel of Citizens United  Jim Bopp, lawyer, The Bopp Law Firm Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a contributing editor of The Atlantic, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Jeffrey Toobin, writer and contributor to The New Yorker and CNN Michael Dorf, professor of law at Cornell University and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy Alex Kozinski, circuit judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy** The key cases: 2010: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commision The key links: Citizens United "Money Unlimited," by Jeffrey Toobin Correction: A earlier version of this episode misstated the date of the last day of the 2009 term.  Additional music for this episode by:  Gyan Riley  Kevin MacLeod "Bad Ideas (distressed)"Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Special thanks to Justin Levitt, Guy-Uriel Charles, William Baude, Helen Knowles, and Derek John.  Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. **This episode was taped prior to The Washington Post's reporting on Judge Alex Kozinski which was published on December 8, 2017. 

A shout out to all our new subscribers, and our thanks to Roberts Bartolic LLP's ERISA Watch newsletter for plugging the prior episodes featuring our interview with Judge Alex Kozinski! This week we're on vacation (there's some sort of eclipse-type thing happening and Joe is going to watch it, while Sid continues to try to make Scottish people laugh out loud) - but we're offering a special episode consisting solely of our full, unedited interview with Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski. No travel ban update (the hearing is August 28 in Seattle ;); no Random Legal News of the Week (there was so much - but it will have to wait); not even any music! This week it's just Joe and Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski taking about everything from brief writing, to Ayn Rand, to His Honor's views on the death penalty.  Enjoy this special 90-minute episode, check back for new episodes starting in September, and in the meantime, as always, keep it legal!™

More Kozinski! After special guest co-host Will Maguire and Joe wade through the travel ban update and the legal news of the week (FBI raids! Google Bros! Breaking Bad!) - we play the second half of Joe's interview with outspoken and controversial Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, including his honor's thoughts about The Fourth Amendment How to be friends with the judges you criticize in your dissents Digital privacy and the third party doctrine Whether your mom is a good legal editor Criminal justice reform The death penalty We will be on hiatus until September - but we hope you'll listen in, and, as always, keep it legal!

This week Joe and special guest co-host Vernon C. Grigg III walk you through the week's legal developments, including the re-invigorated Ninth Circuit appeal of the revised Hawai'i injunction against the second administration travel ban; the marketing of medications directly to state drug court judges; Wells Fargo's misconduct, which just keeps going, and going, and going; and the Mueller grand jury that empaneled last week but best of all - we close with Part 1 of our 2-part 90-minute interview of Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski! In this the first half of the interview we touched upon His childhood in Romania His libertarian political views Kurt Vonnegut Bananas Movies and judicial opinions Antitrust laws The Senate Blue Slip process The power (or lack thereof) of big corporations, and Proposals to divide the Ninth Circuit Next week will be even juicer - in Part 2 of the interview, we touch on the future of privacy rights, the 4th Amendment, and the 3rd Party Doctrine in the digital age, more on judicial opinion writing, his views on the death penalty, and dinner with the Ginsburgs and the Scalias. And as if that weren't enough, Judge Kozinski himself answers your listener questions. As always, thanks for listening, and keep it legal!

At a live event in Los Angeles, CA, Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Eugene Volokh of UCLA discuss current debates about speech online. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

At a live event in Los Angeles, CA, Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Eugene Volokh of UCLA discuss current debates about speech online. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Back in August of 2014, Lawyer 2 Lawyer hosted a show on the death penalty where we explored whether the death penalty was considered cruel and unusual with standout guests Judge Alex Kozinski from the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit, exonerated death row survivor Ronald Keine from Witness to Innocence, and M*A*S*H actor Mike Farrell from Death Penalty Focus.  That episode focused on the merits of firing squads vs. lethal injections and corruption in the judicial system. Presently, the death penalty is the law in in 31 states and the debate continues. Today on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, we revisit the death penalty debate. Host, J. Craig Williams joins attorney Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center and Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on the bench of the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit. Robert and Judge Kozinski take a look at the death penalty debate within our society and in our courts, exploring forensics, the fate of the death penalty, and whether we will see the constitutionality of death penalty argued before the Supreme Court.

Judge Alex Kozinski recently published a scathing critique of the American criminal justice system in an article titled “Criminal Law 2.0.” According to Judge Kozinski, we should be alarmed by the number of people who have been exonerated by DNA testing. That testing has exposed a system that is rife with false confessions, unreliable eyewitnesses, junk forensics, and misbehaving prosecutors, among other problems. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, on the other hand, says critics have exaggerated the problems and ignored the virtues of our institutions. Although the American criminal justice system has its share of failings, it gets a lot of things right and is thus worthy of our admiration and respect. Please join us for a vigorous debate between two of our most experienced and learned judges. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi interview Judge Alex Kozinski from the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit and Judge Richard Kopf from the U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska. Together, they discuss the essential elements that go into persuasive legal writing and how lawyers might be selling their clients short. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

The Eighth Amendment protects people from cruel and unusual punishments in the United States but what does that mean? In the last 38 years, Americans used hangings, gas chambers, lethal injections, electrocutions, and firing squads to execute convicted murderers. Given the recent reports of botched lethal injections, some experts are calling for the return of the firing squad as the most humane form of capital punishment. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host J. Craig Williams interviews Judge Alex Kozinski from the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit, exonerated death row survivor Ronald Keine from Witness to Innocence, and M*A*S*H actor Mike Farrell from Death Penalty Focus. Together they discuss the merits of firing squads vs. lethal injections, corruption in the judicial system, and the morality of western society. Tune in to hear about the 144 exonerated death row survivors as well as Ronald Keine's near miss with the gas chamber. Judge Alex Kozinski sits on the bench of the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit where he's served since his appointment on November 7th 1985. Prior to his appointment Judge Kozinski occupied other prestigious positions including Chief Judge of the US Claims Court and Office of Counsel to the President. He is married with three children plus three grandchildren. Ronald Keine is an exonerated death row inmate who was just 9 days from his execution in the gas chamber when the actual murderer confessed to the crime. Today, he an Assistant Director of Membership and Training for Witness to Innocence an anti-death penalty organization whose leading voice is that of exonerated death row survivors. Mike Farrell played Captain BJ Hunnicut for eight years on the hit television show M*A*S*H as well other roles like Jim Hansen in another series called Providence. In the 90s, he served for three years as a member of the State of California's Commission on Judicial Performance. Mr. Farrell is a life-long opponent of the death penalty and has been the President of Death Penalty Focus since 1994. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

Talks from the Center for Internet and Society. The topics span a variety of topics relating to civil rights and technological innovation. CIS is housed at the Stanford Law School.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently spoke at Golden Gate University School of Law's third annual Intellectual Property Distinguished Speaker Program, where he created a buzz when he shared his insight on technology today and how it has greatly impacted the First Amendment. Attorneys and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams welcome the Honorable Alex Kozinski to the program and talk about technology, bloggers, the First Amendment, his role as a Judge and a lot more.