Podcast appearances and mentions of judge nancy gertner

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Today:Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner discusses a judge's ruling that federal officials unconstitutionally violated the free speech rights of pro-Palestinian protesters.Plus, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley discusses the government shutdown.

Today:Retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner discusses a Department of Justice gone rogue, as top department officials suggest ignoring court orders.And, Michael Curry of the Mass League of Community Health Centers and NAACP discusses the impacts of conservative attacks on diversity.

Retired federal court judge Nancy Gertner analyzes a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively ended nationwide injunctions, the Trump administration's stance with the judicial branch, and discusses the difficulty for judges in sentencing criminal defendants.

Retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner is a graduate of Barnard College and Yale Law School, where she was an editor on The Yale Law Journal, also receiving her M.A. in Political Science at Yale University. She was appointed to the United States District Court (D. Mass.) in 1994 by President Clinton and prior to 1994, Judge Gertner was a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer in Massachusetts. She retired from the federal bench in 2011 to join the faculty at Harvard Law School. Judge Gertner is the Managing Director of the MGH Center for Law Brain and Behavior. She was named one of “The Most Influential Lawyers of the Past 25 Years” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Judge Gertner has received numerous awards, including the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award. Additionally, Judge Gertner was a Commissioner on President Biden's Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, and has written and spoken widely on various legal issues, appearing as a keynote speaker, panelist or lecturer concerning civil rights, civil liberties, employment, criminal justice and procedural issues throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia. Her opinion column appears regularly in the Boston Globe and WBUR's Cognoscenti and occasionally the New York Times and the Washington Post. She also is a commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and WGBH's “Jim Braude and Margery Eagan” show. Join us for this insightful, informative conversation about Donald Trump's march towards autocracy; the consequential role of the Supreme Court; the Emil Bove confirmation hearing; the Epstein case; the threats against Fed Chair Jerome Powell; and the Harvard University lawsuit. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Nicolle Wallace discusses the mess of Trump's own making as his staunchest allies seem to break with him over Epstein, the rising unpopularity of his inhumane immigration tactics, a new inflation report that shows the real impacts of his trade war, the coalition of judges warning about Emil Bove's nomination, and more. Joined by: John Heilemann, Sam Stein, Charlotte Howard, Carol Leonnig, Kim Atkins Stohr, Eddie Glaude, Judge Nancy Gertner, and Rick Stengel.

An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. But judges are under attack.  Therefore, we must stand the post and protect judges from intimidation, unlawful prosecution, incredulous calls to impeach, or worse. And, when it comes to federal criminal sentencing, judicial independence is also crucial to the fair administration of justice.   But judicial independence has been undermined for decades by adherence to the stringent, dehumanizing, US sentencing guidelines. Since 2005, these guidelines have been discretionary, yet many judges and lawyers continue to use them rigidly, leading to undesirable outcomes for clients. Therefore, attorneys need to be more creative and comprehensive in their sentencing approach, and help the judges understand that the guidelines are not a useful tool to determine a human being's ultimate fate.  This discussion features Nancy Gertner, former US District Court Judge and current Harvard Law Professor, who provides valuable insights on these topics. The first half of our discussion addresses the actions of the Trump administration and its efforts to influence the judiciary. For those interested solely in sentencing advocacy without political context, please proceed to the second half of the podcast, approximately at the 38:00 mark, for a master-class in sentencing advocacy from a former federal judge. This segment offers essential information for every defense lawyer and client facing sentencing. #JudicialIndependence, #SentencingJustice, or #DignityOverData   IN THIS EPISODE:   Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan's arrest and prosecution for allegedly obstructing ICE; Assessing the merits of the charge against Judge Dugan; How ICE's conduct presents its own form of obstruction of justice because it denies people their day in court and increases the chances of bringing harm and violence to innocents; The adminstration's effort to target judges for arrest, impeachment, or worse;  Whether the administration can defy a judge's orders without consequence;  A word on the plight of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia; The new pardon paradigm and how it may impact sentencing; Judge Gertner's incredible sentencing advocacy advice, which includes the power of narrative, her take on sentencing mitigation films, irrational adherence to guidelines, lackluster attorney performance, the importance of allocution, telling the story of prison, and more! Judge Gertner's take on using A/I in court (in the context of an A/I generated video of the deceased victim giving his sentencing statement from beyond the grave); The legacy of Justice Souter, who passed away the morning we recorded this podcast.   Commentary: A former judge's call to eliminate mandatory-minimum sentencing laws 150 Former Judges Tell Pam Bondi They're Not 'Deranged' AI used to make video of deceased victim deliver impact statement in court : NPR

Less than a month into Donald Trump's second term, his administration's aggressive restructuring of the government and flirtation with defying court rulings threaten to spark a constitutional crisis. "He could have done all of that lawfully, and instead what he's done is testing the limits of his power in a way we have never seen in this country," says retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner.During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump dismissed concerns about executive overreach and claimed he would respect court decisions. But legal experts warn his broad view of presidential power crosses long held boundaries and is propelling the country into a constitutional crisis. On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, Gertner, who is consulting on several cases challenging the administration's actions and is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and The Intercept's senior counsel and correspondent Shawn Musgrave discuss the federal courts' response so far and what it demonstrates about our system of checks and balances.“I hope that they will realize that one of the two checks on an aggressive president doing unlawful things is that the courts are functioning as a check on his power. I fear that the other takeaway is that Congress is not. The concern about Trump wiping out programs that Congress has approved is a concern that should bother every legislator — Republican or Democrat, it shouldn't matter. That is a core, foundational checks-and-balances issue. And the fact that there is not an outcry from Congress is troubling,” says Gertner.Musgrave adds that it is a real test of governmental structure. “We're in a moment that illustrates the fragility of the system of checks and balances that's held for a couple hundred years. The system that was set up in the Constitution isn't guaranteed; it has to be protected. And so far, it looks like it's going to be up to the courts to do that,” he says.Gertner says there is another check that isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but is just as important. “The public will speak in two years in the midterm elections,” she says. “So the public, although it doesn't have a specific role in the next two years before we can vote again on national issues, the public is important here. I think that people should stand up if they think that what's going on is illegal and unconstitutional.”To hear more of the conversation, check out this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Late spring/early summer is always a busy time for the Supreme Court, but this year, it's not just the controversial decisions that are making news. The justices themselves have been in headlines — for all the wrong reasons. Kara and an expert panel discuss the ethical lapses, refusals the recuse, and of course, the cases themselves — including the big one, over Trump's claim to “complete and total” immunity. The panelists are: Judge Nancy Gertner (retired), a lecturer at Harvard Law School and former US District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts who served on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court; Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center; and Judge David Tatel (retired), a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and author of the new book Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice. This interview was recorded on Tuesday June 18.  Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find Kara on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Step 1: Select the right justices for your cause.  Step 2: Select the right cases for those justices.    This podcast has unpacked the right-wing scheme to capture and control our nation's highest court, but the justices sitting on the bench aren't the only ones who have been carefully selected — the cases have been too.  In this episode of Making the Case, Senator Whitehouse is joined by retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner to discuss the changes in the behavior of Supreme Court justices in recent years, Judge Gertner's work on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, and ongoing Court reform efforts. Follow ⁠@SenWhitehouse⁠ on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook for all the latest updates on Making the Case.

Best Of BPR 10/02: Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe & Retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner On Donald Trump

Former U.S. federal judge Nancy Gertner was appointed to the bench of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton in 1994, retiring in 2011 to teach at Harvard Law School, and is working on a book featuring interviews with people she imprisoned. Gertner is in New Zealand for the Criminal Bar Association conference, discussing, among other things, Donald Trump's chances of being re-elected, should he be convicted.

Judges have been historically resistant to most kinds of reforms, according to a new report from the Square One Project at Columbia University. The author of the report, Judge Nancy Gertner, argues that judges must be actively involved in revolutionizing the justice system. She also offers up six key recommendations for reimagining judging, including improvements to judicial selection and community engagement. 

Judges have been historically resistant to most kinds of reforms, according to a new report from the Square One Project at Columbia University. The author of the report, Judge Nancy Gertner, argues that judges must be actively involved in revolutionizing the justice system. She also offers up six key recommendations for reimagining judging, including improvements to judicial selection and community engagement. 

This month's episode features advice and observations from some of NITA's top judges, who serve as faculty, presenters, and board members. They share their reflections on what they've seen from their unique vantage point on the bench and dispense helpful tips for the next time you're in court. Topics2:13     What counsel should know before setting foot in my courtroom10:30  Most common mistake I see lawyers make in my courtroom17:55  Impressive or memorable things a lawyer has done during trial 22:50  Nuttiest things I've seen during jury selectionResources50 Tips for 50 Years, Part 1 and 50 Tips for 50 Years, Part 2Judge Mark Drummond (podcast) (webcast) (webcast)Justice Lee Edmon (bio)Judge Marian Gaston (bio) (webcast)Judge Nancy Gertner (bio) (podcast) (webcast) Judge Amy Hanley (bio) (podcast) (podcast) (webcast) (webcast) (webcast)Judge Ruth Rocker McMillan (bio) (podcast)Judge Sam Sheldon (bio) (webcast)Judge Mindy Solomon (bio) (webcast)Judge Christopher Whitten (bio) (webcast) (webcast)

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by taking calls about how listeners feel about President Joe Biden's expected announcement on student loan debt forgiveness. Art Caplan discussed COVID-19 protocols in schools ahead of back to school season, the myriad of factors weighing on teens' mental health and the inadequacies of systems in place to provide help, and the calls for renaming monkeypox. Caplan is the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine in New York City. Judge Nancy Gertner joined us for a session of “On the Docket,” in which she analyzed news about recent comments from Suffolk District Attorney candidate and City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo about previous sexual assault allegations against him, the findings from the FBI's raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, and a recent hack and leak of voter information in Georgia. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Jeff Thielman and Farkhanda Ehssan discussed their work at the International Institute of New England resettling Afghan refugees, including how they try to help mitigate culture shock, how things are in Afghanistan for women now, and how the economy works for immigrants right now. Thielman is the President and CEO of the IINE, and Ehssan is a case specialist there. Shirley Leung shared her thoughts about the Wu administration's attempts to revive and take responsibility for the failures with the T, the Biden administration's recent announcement about student loan relief, and the draw of fully automated coffee shops. Leung is a business columnist for the Boston Globe. Dr. Nick Whitney discussed the uptick in shark activity on Cape Cod, including how climate change is having an impact on it, the importance of treating the ocean with respect, and the new “Sharktivity” app. Whitney is a senior scientist at the New England Aquarium's Anderson Cabot Center, where he also chairs the Fisheries Science and Emerging Technologies program. We ended the show by asking listeners if they've ever seen a UFO.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by asking listeners for their thoughts on the 4-day work week. Callie Crossley discussed the latest culture headlines, including Dr. Oz's viral crudité video, Brian Stelter leaving CNN, and the debate about the reigning Queen of Christmas. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black. Judge Nancy Gertner weighed in on the ongoing investigations into Former President Trump, including fallout from the Jan. 6th committee hearings and the FBI raid of Mar-a-lago, as well as the indictment of 3 men in the killing of Whitey Bulger. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Then, we asked listeners when the right age to turn in your driver's license is. Andy Ihnatko shared the latest tech headlines, including privacy concerns surrounding Amazon buying Roomba, when it's time to buy a new iPhone and how to make your current one last longer. Ihnatko is a tech writer and blogger, posting at Ihnatko.com. Comedian Jessi Klein tells us about her new book, "I'll Show Myself Out: Essays on Midlife and Motherhood." Klein is a comedian, the head writer on Inside Amy Schumer, a former writer on Chappelle's Show, and voices Jessie on Netflix's Big Mouth.  Luisa Harris and Gregory Groover Jr. joined us to talk about the Mission Hill Arts Festival, and Groover was joined by Max Ridley and Tyson Jackson to play a few songs.Groover is the Assistant Chair of Ensembles at Berklee, and Harris is the founder of the Mission Hill Arts Festival.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by talking with listeners about their MBTA woes. Trenni Kusnierek talks about the possibility of Kevin Durant coming to the Celtics, Lebron James' comments about racism in Boston sports, and the latest in the running world and the state of the Red Sox. Kusnierek is a reporter and anchor for NBC Sports Boston, and a weekly Boston Public Radio contributor. Joan Donovan discusses her team's research affirming former President Donald Trump's role in the events of Jan. 6, including the new role of social media in inciting political violence. Donovan is the research director of Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy where she examines internet and technology studies, online extremism, media manipulation and disinformation campaigns. Judge Nancy Gertner shares her thoughts on the possibility of Trump being criminally charged based on the findings of the Jan. 6 committee. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Corby Kummer debates the merits of bringing back happy hour in Massachusetts, discusses the end of the Choco Taco, and explains why “50 Best Restaurants in the World” lists are problematic. Kummer is executive director of the food and society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. John King talks about the possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court repealing the right to contraception following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, what to expect from the Jan. 6 hearings and President Joe Biden's plans to combat climate change. King is CNN's Chief National Correspondent and anchor of "Inside Politics,” which airs weekdays and Sunday mornings at 8 a.m. We end the show by asking listeners what their comfort shows are.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We start the show by asking listeners what should be done to protect abortion access in the U.S. Judge Nancy Gertner talks about the future of the Supreme Court post-Dobbs, including the direction Justice Clarence Thomas wants to take the court. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Corby Kummer discusses the climate of restaurant closings amid rising rents, and a new entirely mushroom-focused restaurant in Somerville. Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Hal Brooks and Gina Femia discuss the unorthodox approach to theater that the Cape Cod Theatre Project takes, and how the process worked for Femia's new play. Brooks is the The Cape Cod Theater Project's artistic director, and Femia is a playwright, who wrote “The Violet Sisters.” Revs. Irene Monroe and Emmett Price share their thoughts on how religious leaders should organize to effectively advocate for abortion rights, and where the separation of church and state plays in that organizing. Monroe is a syndicated religion columnist and the Boston voice for Detour's African American Heritage Trail. Price is founding pastor of Community of Love Christian Fellowship in Allston, and the Inaugural Dean of Africana Studies at Berklee College of Music. Together they host the “All Rev'd Up” podcast. We end the show by asking people what they think about SCOTUS' decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Today on Boston Public Radio: Attorney General Maura Healey shares her reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson. She also answers listeners' questions for this month's “Ask the Attorney General.” Healey is attorney general of Massachusetts and a candidate for governor. Judge Nancy Gertner discusses the future of abortions in the US, including the trials that will face those who seek abortion in light of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Gertner is a retired federal judge and is now a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Callie Crosley discusses the fate of other court-granted rights in the face of the Supreme Court decision. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black. Then we turned to President Joe Biden's address concerning the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, and continued taking calls about the Dobbs decision. Dr. Cheryl Hamlin talks about her advocacy for abortion access, and the state of her practice and colleagues considering the Dobbs decision. Dr. Hamlin is an obstetrician and gynecologist at Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge. She travels to the Jackson Women's Health Organization in Mississippi each month to provide abortion care, the clinic at the center of the Dobbs v. Jackson case that is being decided by the Supreme Court. We return to listeners' reactions to the Dobbs decision. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley calls for the declaration of a public health emergency in light of abortion restriction. We end the show with more listener calls.

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner and class action lawyer Reuben Guttman discuss the impact of Twombly and Iqbal, two SCOTUS decisions that precipitated critical changes in pleading, class certification, and expert standards that have affected a complaint's capacity for making it past the motion-to-dismiss stage. In this wide-ranging interview, they talk about the challenges these decisions have on both judges and practitioners and how the landmark case of Brown v. Board might fare under post-Twiqbal standards. Topics4:02    Twombly/Iqbal's impact on pleading standards7:17    Why process and procedure matter  10:16  Changes pleading standards12:43  Changes in class certifications14:11  Rise of multidistrict litigation16:20  Changes in expert standards, both criminal and civil21:47  Experts in the civil rights arena25:40  Applying today's pleading and class certification standards to Brown v. Board 29:30  Rules that affect access to justice33:04  The benefit of a losing Supreme Court case36:04  Getting around these obstacles44:11  Judges, lawyers, and the legacy of discrimination cases48:35  Signoff questionQuote“I know from having been a criminal defense lawyer and civil rights lawyer and a judge, and now sort of a litigator as well, that what I may find ‘plausible' may be not what a jury finds ‘plausible.' That plausibility is, in fact, a contextual analysis—in context. And when I sat on the bench there were numbers of times, in fact, that my law clerk would say to me, ‘Judge, you can get rid of this case. You can get rid of this case. The allegations are not plausible.' And I would turn to the law clerk and say, ‘To whom? To you? To me? To some of my male colleagues on the bench?' So essentially, plausibility enabled the judges, who are not the most diverse group in the world, to make their own decisions about whether a case should proceed.” Judge Nancy GertnerResourcesJudge Nancy Gertner (bio)  Reuben Guttman (bio)Representative Opinions of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (book) From Conley to Twombly to Iqbal (article)  Brown v. Board of Education complaint (PDF) Pretrial Advocacy (book) 

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by talking with listeners about the leak of a Supreme Court abortion draft decision, and the future of abortion rights. Alton Brown talks about “Iron Chef” moving to Netflix, and his latest cookbook, “Good Eats: The Final Years.” Brown is a Peabody Award-winning celebrity chef and host of both “Good Eats” and “Iron Chef,” which is making a grand-return to Netflix this June. His latest book is “Good Eats: The Final Years.” Judge Nancy Gertner weighs in on the Supreme Court draft opinion that has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade, and what overturning the case means for the legal system. Gertner is a retired federal judge, and is now a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Imari Paris Jeffries discusses King Boston breaking ground at the Martin Luther King, Jr., and Coretta Scott King memorial, “The Embrace,” in Boston Common. He also shares his thoughts on the potential for government-funded reparations. Jeffries is the executive director of King Boston, the group behind this coming memorial for Dr. Martin Luther King and Corretta Scott King on Boston Common called “The Embrace.” John Waters previews his new book, “Liarmouth: A Feel-Bad Romance: A Novel,” and talks about the 50th anniversary of “Pink Flamingos.” Waters is a filmmaker, actor, artist and the author of “Liarmouth: A Feel-Bad Romance: A Novel.” Jared Bowen talks about Matthew López's play “The Inheritance” at the SpeakEasy Stage Company. He also shares his thoughts on “Prison Nation,” a photography exhibit examining mass incarceration across the U.S., on view at the Davis Museum. Bowen is GBH's executive arts editor and the host of "Open Studio." We end the show by returning to our discussion with listeners on the future of abortion rights.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by asking listeners their thoughts on the start of the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Trenni Kusnierek talks about new information about the 2019 shooting of retired Red Sox player David Ortiz, and number 15-seed Saint Peters pulling off an upset over no. 2-seed Kentucky during March Madness last weekend. Kusnierek is an anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. She's also a Boston Public Radio contributor. EJ Dionne weighs in on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's leadership, and the state of childcare. Dionne is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. His latest book is “Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country.” Corby Kummer shares tips on how to make and buy Ukrainian food while supporting Ukraine, and potential concerns about lab-grown meat. Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Revs. Irene Monroe and Emmett G. Price III discuss Ketanji Brown Jackson's relationship with faith, and the CROWN act, which prohibits hair-based discrimination. Monroe is a syndicated religion columnist and the Boston voice for Detour's African American Heritage Trail. Price is founding pastor of Community of Love Christian Fellowship in Allston, the Inaugural Dean of Africana Studies at Berklee College of Music. Together they host the All Rev'd Up podcast. Judge Nancy Gertner preview what to expect as the Senate confirmation hearings begin for Ketanji Brown Jackson. Judge Gertner is a retired U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. She's currently a senior lecturer on law at Harvard University. We end the show by talking with listeners about returning to the office.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by opening phone lines, talking with listeners about surging gas prices associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Shirley Leung talks about the closure of Amazon's brick and mortar bookstores, and the Green Line extension to Somerville. Leung is a business columnist for the Boston Globe. David Leonard shares how people increasingly turned to library services throughout the pandemic. Leonard is the president of the Boston Public Library. Bill McKibben discusses the UN's recent climate report, and concerns over Russian attacks on nuclear power plants in Ukraine. McKibben is an author, educator and environmentalist. He's the founder of 350.org and ThirdAct.org. He has a new newsletter on Substack titled “The Crucial Years.” He's also got a new, serialized book titled “The Other Cheek: An Epic Nonviolent Yarn.” Judge Nancy Gertner weighs in on the Supreme Court's reinstatement of the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Judge Gertner is a retired U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. She's currently a senior lecturer on law at Harvard University. Andy Ihnatko updates us on the latest tech headlines, explaining how the tech industry has responded to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Ihnatko is a tech writer and blogger, posting at Ihnatko.com. Callie Crossley talks about the life and legacy of Autherine Lucy Foster, the first Black woman to attend the University of Alabama. She also discusses the racism facing African students fleeing Ukraine. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black.  Sue O'Connell shares her thoughts on Gov. Greg Abbott's order targeting the parents of transgender kids, and reflects on the queerness of Gen Z. O'Connell is the co-publisher of Bay Windows and South End News, and contributor to Current, on NBC L-X and NECN. We wrap up the show by talking with listeners about the 50th anniversary of The Godfather.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by opening phone lines, asking listeners if they felt that the U.S. government's sanctions and rhetoric against Russia were enough of a response. Tom Nichols shares his analysis of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, discussing paths to nuclear confrontation and the motives of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Nichols is a contributing writer and proprietor of “Peacefield” newsletter at The Atlantic, a professor of national security affairs at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and a five-time Jeopardy winner. Callie Crossley discusses President Joe Biden's nomination of Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black. Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) talks about his recent trip with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the Munich Security Conference, and shares his thoughts on U.S. sanctions against Russia. Congressman Keating represents Massachusetts' 9th Congressional District. Judge Nancy Gertner discusses the latest on LGBTQ and abortion rights before the Supreme Court, and President Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Judge Gertner is a retired U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District Court here in Massachusetts. She's currently a Senior Lecturer on Law at Harvard University. Sue O'Connell talks about recent anti-LGBTQ laws targeting LGBTQ youth in Texas and Florida, and Hank the Tank, a 500 pound bear authorities suspected of breaking into dozens of California homes. O'Connell is the co-publisher of Bay Windows and South End News, and contributor to Current, on NBC L-X and NECN. We wrap up the show by talking with listeners about the historic nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by asking listeners for their thoughts on newly released details about former President Donald Trump's toilet habits, including that he clogged White House toilets by trying to flush documents. Judge Nancy Gertner discusses Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins' comments about Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the death penalty, and the ethics of the Supreme Court. Judge Gertner is a retired U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District Court here in Massachusetts. She's currently a Senior Lecturer on Law at Harvard University. Callie Crossley talks about a bipartisan bill passed by Congress strengthening protections for victims of sexual misconduct, the Obama Portraits headed to the MFA and research showing homes on streets named after Confederate leaders are valued lower than homes on other streets. She's currently a Senior Lecturer on Law at Harvard University. Matt Gilbert rounds up the best in television, including “Maid,” “A Teacher,” “Unorthodox,” “Normal People” and “Inventing Anna.” Gilbert is the TV critic for The Boston Globe. Rick Steves updates listeners on his latest travels, including romantic spots in Europe and why he loves Istanbul. Steves is an author, television and radio host and the owner of the Rick Steves' Europe tour group. You can catch his television show, “Rick Steves' Europe,” weeknights at 7:30 p.m. on GBH 2 and his radio show, “Travel With Rick Steves,” Sundays at 4 p.m. on GBH. Sue O'Connell weighs in on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' new “Don't Say Gay” law banning teachers from discussing sexuality and queerness in schools and Dolly Parton paying tuition costs her employees. O'Connell is the co-publisher of Bay Windows and the South End News, as well as NECN's political commentator and explainer-in-chief. We end the show by asking listeners their plans for the Super Bowl.

As Justice Stephen Breyer announces his intention to step down from the Supreme Court, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Judge Nancy Gertner to discuss why now, what now, and who now. Judge Gertner is a former federal judge, member of the White House's Supreme Court Reform Commission, Harvard Law professor … and she's known Justice Breyer for decades. They discuss what's changed on the court and wax nostalgic about Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia's Muppet stadium tour.  In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern to dig into some of the nastier commentary around possible nominees for Justice Breyer's seat, and to figure out what the rest of the term might look like in light of this week's news.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As Justice Stephen Breyer announces his intention to step down from the Supreme Court, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Judge Nancy Gertner to discuss why now, what now, and who now. Judge Gertner is a former federal judge, member of the White House's Supreme Court Reform Commission, Harvard Law professor … and she's known Justice Breyer for decades. They discuss what's changed on the court and wax nostalgic about Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia's Muppet stadium tour.  In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern to dig into some of the nastier commentary around possible nominees for Justice Breyer's seat, and to figure out what the rest of the term might look like in light of this week's news.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by talking with listeners about the blizzard heading towards Massachusetts this weekend. Judge Nancy Gertner discussea Justice Stephen Breyer's retirement announcement, and the current state of the Supreme Court. Judge Gertner is a retired U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District Court here in Massachusetts. She's currently a Senior Lecturer on Law at Harvard University.   Callie Crossley talka about the states fighting back against threats to voting rights, and the students at Wharton who believe that the average American worker makes over six-figures per year. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black. Anthony Everett shares the legacy of the WCVB television series “Chronicle,” which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Everett is the Emmy Award-winning anchor of “Chronicle,” WCVB Channel 5's nightly news magazine. Its 40th Anniversary special airs tonight at 8 on WCVB.  Sarah Harmon talks about organizing “Primal Scream” events around Greater Boston, and stress relief during the pandemic. Harmon is a mother, a therapist, a yoga and mindfulness teacher who runs multiple wellness groups, including Sarah Harmon Wellness, The School of MOM and The Postpartum Wellness Group. Sue O'Connell shares her thoughts on Michael Avenatti's cross-examination of Stormy Daniels, and Sarah Palin's restaurant visit two days after testing positive for COVID. O'Connell is the co-publisher of Bay Windows and the South End News, as well as NECN's political commentator and explainer-in-chief. We wrap up the show by asking listeners how they're handling pandemic stress.

Decision making in the courtroom: In his guide to thinking better, Professor Steven Pinker explores the life and death choices made by judges and juries. To help him sift signals from noise, he's joined by: Judge Nancy Gertner: former United States district judge and now professor of law at Harvard University Elizabeth Loftus; professor at the University of California and one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century Producer: Imogen Walford Editor Emma Rippon Think with Pinker is produced in partnership with The Open University.

How Antitrust Laws Are Defining the Facebook Monopolization Case: We get the latest on Facebook/Meta antitrust lawsuit, and learn more about what constitutes antitrust with Vanderbilt law professor Rebecca Allensworth.  A Year and a Half After McGirt v. Oklahoma, State Officials Still Want Ruling Overturned: State officials have filed 45 petitions with the Supreme Court asking the justices to either overturn or rule more narrowly on McGirt. This month, the Court has been considering some of those petitions. The Takeaway speaks with Allison Herrera, Indigenous Affairs reporter for KOSU, about the most recent developments. A Word about Wordle: We speak with Associate Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Florida, Matt Baldwin, about why playing Wordle and sharing our results with friends and family is so rewarding. How to Reimagine Judging: Judge Nancy Gertner, argues that judges must be actively involved in revolutionizing the justice system. She also offers up six key recommendations for reimagining judging, including improvements to judicial selection and community engagement.  For transcripts, see individual segment pages.

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner has been struggling with some legal demons herself, and she wound up turning to people she'd sentenced to help her sort them out.

Rejecting the authority of the U.S. government to enforce its laws. Local institutions requiring people to get vaccinated if they want to work. We ask retired judge Nancy Gertner, "Can they do that?"

In this culminating keynote session of the Kennedy Library's "Expanding Democracy" conference, Judge Nancy Gertner (ret.), senior lecturer on law at Harvard Law School, and former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Margaret Marshall deepen the conversation about the judicial role in contemporary voting rights with Barbara Howard, former anchor of WGBH’s All Things Considered. The two-day conference commemorates the centennial of the 19th Amendment and explores contemporary and historic issues about this landmark legislation. For more info, visit jfklibrary.org/forums.

On episode 120 of The Quarantine Tapes, Paul Holdengräber is joined by Chiraag Bains. Chiraag is the Director of Legal Strategies at Dēmos, working to support voting rights and create a more just democracy.Chiraag has spent the pandemic fighting voting rights battles around the country. He talks with Paul about the recent threats to democracy and voting rights, including the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and the fear of voter fraud being used as a pretext for voter suppression. They discuss what we will need to create a democratic system that truly represents everyone, touching on policing, voting rights legislation, and court reform.Chiraag Bains is the Director of Legal Strategies at Dēmos, where he supervises a national docket of voting rights litigation and structural democracy policy work. He previously served as a visiting senior fellow at Harvard Law School’s Criminal Justice Policy Program and an OSF Leadership in Government Fellow. From 2010 to 2017, Bains served in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. As Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, he supervised matters from the Special Litigation, Voting, Housing, and Appellate Sections, and helped lead DOJ’s work on criminal justice reform. Previously, Bains was a federal prosecutor of civil rights crimes: police brutality, hate crimes, anti-abortion violence, and human trafficking. Bains earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School, his M.Phil. in Criminology from the University of Cambridge, and his B.A. from Yale College. He clerked for Judge Karen Nelson Moore on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Nancy Gertner in the District of Massachusetts.

The Federalist Society, McCarter & English,and Commonwealth Shakespeare CompanypresentShakespeare and the Law 2019 Belief and the Burden of Proof through the Lens of Six of the Bard's PlaysOn April 29, 2019, The Federalist Society's Boston Lawyers Chapter cosponsored their sixteenth annual Shakespeare and the Law Program with McCarter & English and the Commonwealth Shakespeare Company. This year's program took on the themes of belief and the burden of proof through the lens of six of Shakespeare’s plays: Cymbeline, Hamlet, Henry IV, Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, and Othello.Following a staged reading of brief scenes from each of the plays, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, activists, and commentators discussed how allegations of impropriety should be measured and judged in the courtroom, the workplace, the college campus, and the congressional hearing room. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Justice Judith Cowin, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (retired)Samantha Harris, Vice President, Procedural Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE)Judge Timothy Hillman, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJeff Jacoby, Columnist, Boston GlobeWendy Kaminer, Author, Lawyer and Social CriticAndrew Lelling, U.S. Attorney for the United States District Court for the District of MassachusettsJoan Lukey, Choate Hall & Stewart LLPJudge George O’Toole, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsChief Judge Patti Saris, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJudge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJudge Douglas Woodlock, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJudge Rya Zobel, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsModerated by:Jennifer Braceras, Senior Fellow, Independent Women’s Forum; Former Commissioner of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (2001-2007)Judge Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Retired)Directed by:Adam Sanders, Associate Artistic Director, Commonwealth Shakespeare CompanyProduced by:Daniel J. Kelly, Partner, McCarter & English; Chairman, Boston Lawyers ChapterIntroduction by:Steven Maler, Founding Artistic Director, Commonwealth Shakespeare Company

The Federalist Society, McCarter & English,and Commonwealth Shakespeare CompanypresentShakespeare and the Law 2019 Belief and the Burden of Proof through the Lens of Six of the Bard's PlaysOn April 29, 2019, The Federalist Society's Boston Lawyers Chapter cosponsored their sixteenth annual Shakespeare and the Law Program with McCarter & English and the Commonwealth Shakespeare Company. This year's program took on the themes of belief and the burden of proof through the lens of six of Shakespeare’s plays: Cymbeline, Hamlet, Henry IV, Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, and Othello.Following a staged reading of brief scenes from each of the plays, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, activists, and commentators discussed how allegations of impropriety should be measured and judged in the courtroom, the workplace, the college campus, and the congressional hearing room. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Justice Judith Cowin, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (retired)Samantha Harris, Vice President, Procedural Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE)Judge Timothy Hillman, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJeff Jacoby, Columnist, Boston GlobeWendy Kaminer, Author, Lawyer and Social CriticAndrew Lelling, U.S. Attorney for the United States District Court for the District of MassachusettsJoan Lukey, Choate Hall & Stewart LLPJudge George O’Toole, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsChief Judge Patti Saris, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJudge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJudge Douglas Woodlock, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsJudge Rya Zobel, U.S. District Court, District of MassachusettsModerated by:Jennifer Braceras, Senior Fellow, Independent Women’s Forum; Former Commissioner of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (2001-2007)Judge Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Retired)Directed by:Adam Sanders, Associate Artistic Director, Commonwealth Shakespeare CompanyProduced by:Daniel J. Kelly, Partner, McCarter & English; Chairman, Boston Lawyers ChapterIntroduction by:Steven Maler, Founding Artistic Director, Commonwealth Shakespeare Company

The panel discusses a RFRA claim against immigration policy, a cake-baking case from the UK Supreme Court, and the consequences of Shelby County v. Holder. Our guest is Judge Nancy Gertner who discusses her career as a civil rights attorney and how that shaped her time as a judge and what she sees as the […]

The panel discusses a RFRA claim against immigration policy, a cake-baking case from the UK Supreme Court, and the consequences of Shelby County v. Holder. Our guest is Judge Nancy Gertner who discusses her career as a civil rights attorney and how that shaped her time as a judge and what she sees as the […]

On June 14, 2011 Judge Nancy Gertner spoke at a Massachusetts Women's Bar Association event held at Suffolk Law to discuss her new book, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate. Learn more about the book at http://bit.ly/llqKj4.

Judge Nancy Gertner, Judge Gertner, Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, Boston, MA, In Defense of Women, Legal Career Memoirs

Judge Nancy Gertner discussed her new book, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, with Boston Globe columnist Brian McGrory.

A very special guest on this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, Judge Nancy Gertner from the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, speaks out about her experience as a criminal defense attorney, her career rise to jurist and...blogging as a Judge. Join Law.com bloggers and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams as they welcome the Honorable Nancy Gertner, recipient of the 2008 Thurgood Marshall Award of the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, recognizing her contributions to advancing human rights and civil liberties.