Podcasts about justice john paul stevens

This Day in Legal History: Atkins v. VirginiaOn June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, holding that the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The case centered on Daryl Renard Atkins, who was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder in Virginia. During the penalty phase of his trial, defense attorneys presented evidence that Atkins had an IQ of 59 and functioned at the level of a child. Despite this, he was sentenced to death.In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed its earlier stance from Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), which had allowed such executions. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the "evolving standards of decency" in American society, noting that a growing number of states had barred the death penalty for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Court recognized that such defendants are at a heightened risk of wrongful execution due to difficulties in assisting their own defense and the possibility of false confessions.The decision did not establish a national standard for determining intellectual disability, leaving that to the states, but it set a constitutional floor by barring executions in these cases outright. Atkins significantly reshaped the legal landscape of capital punishment, prompting states to revise death penalty statutes and sentencing procedures.The ruling reinforced the importance of individualized sentencing and safeguarded vulnerable populations from the most severe penalties. It also underscored the role of psychological and scientific evidence in constitutional interpretation. While not without criticism, Atkins remains a cornerstone of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and a key moment in the Court's ongoing reevaluation of capital punishment.Technology giants Apple and Meta are currently facing possible penalties under the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), but the European Commission has decided not to immediately fine them—even if they don't fully comply by the deadline next week.In April, both companies were fined—€500 million for Apple and €200 million for Meta—and given 60 days (ending 26 June) to align their practices with DMA requirements. Apple was penalized for preventing app developers from directing users to alternatives outside its platform, infringing DMA fairness rules. Meta was fined for its “pay or consent” system, which required users to either pay for an ad-free experience or agree to extensive personal data use; the Commission saw this as limiting user choice.Since November 2024, Meta has offered a new, lower-data personalized advertising model, which remains under Commission review. The current situation involves ongoing dialogue: any future fines will depend on the outcome of that review and will be imposed only after detailed assessments, rather than automatically once the deadline passed.These April fines were deliberately modest—reflecting the short duration of non-compliance and signaling the EU's priority on achieving compliance over punishment, marking a softer approach compared to previous, harsher antitrust actions. The situation also plays into broader economic tensions: EU leaders have threatened digital advertising taxes in response to recent US tariffs, while a US trade report criticized EU digital regulation as a trade barrier.Tech giants Apple and Meta to escape sanctions for failing to meet EU digital rules | EuronewsA U.S. appeals court has temporarily allowed Donald Trump to retain control over California's National Guard, despite a legal challenge from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pauses an earlier ruling by Judge Charles Breyer, who found Trump had unlawfully federalized the Guard without meeting statutory requirements or adequately coordinating with Newsom.The court stated Trump likely acted within his authority and that even if coordination with the governor was insufficient, Newsom lacked the power to override a presidential order. Still, the court left open the possibility of further challenges under laws barring federal troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement. Newsom plans to pursue his challenge, arguing Trump is misusing military force against civilians.The case stems from Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles earlier in June to suppress protests tied to his immigration policies—actions Newsom said infringed on state sovereignty and legal limits on military involvement in civilian matters. The Trump administration argued troops are protecting federal property, not performing law enforcement.During a hearing, the appellate judges examined whether courts can assess a president's decision to federalize troops under a law allowing such moves only during invasion, rebellion, or when civilian enforcement fails. The court found the last condition may have applied, given protest-related violence. However, it rejected the Justice Department's claim that such presidential decisions are beyond judicial review.The Insurrection Act and related federalization authority are central to this case. The Act allows a president to take control of a state's National Guard in limited situations—such as rebellion or when laws can't be enforced by normal means. This case illustrates both the expansive view of executive power and the judiciary's role in checking it, even amid claims of national emergency.US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for nowPresident Trump has once again extended the deadline for TikTok to be sold to a U.S. owner, granting a third 90-day reprieve through an executive order despite lacking a clear legal basis for the extensions. The move allows TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. while negotiations persist to transfer ownership from China-based ByteDance to an American entity. The previous extension fell through when China withdrew from talks following Trump's new tariffs.This delay has not yet faced a court challenge, even though the original ban—passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court—briefly took effect in January. Trump's personal popularity on the platform, where he has more than 15 million followers, adds a political twist to the ongoing negotiations. TikTok praised the decision and emphasized its importance to 170 million users and 7.5 million U.S. businesses.Despite concerns from national security officials and lawmakers like Senator Mark Warner, who accuse the administration of ignoring known risks, the repeated extensions suggest a softening of resolve. Analysts describe the situation as a recurring political maneuver with no clear endpoint—likening it to the endless debates over the debt ceiling.Meanwhile, TikTok continues to roll out new features and expand its services, including AI tools debuted in Cannes, signaling confidence in its long-term U.S. presence. Tech giants Apple, Google, and Oracle remain engaged with TikTok, reassured that the administration won't penalize them under current law.Public opinion has shifted, with fewer Americans now supporting a ban compared to 2023. Concerns remain over data privacy, but many citizens are unsure or opposed to banning the app outright.Trump extends TikTok ban deadline for a third time, without clear legal basisThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach. Johann Sebastian Bach, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, composed the Goldberg Variations, BWV 988, in 1741. Originally written for harpsichord, the work consists of an aria followed by 30 variations, returning to the aria at the end in a da capo structure. It was likely commissioned by Count Hermann Karl von Keyserlingk, a Russian diplomat suffering from insomnia, who wanted music to soothe his sleepless nights—though this origin story is debated.The aria, which opens and closes the piece, is a gentle, sarabande-like melody in G major. Unlike other variation sets built on melodies, Bach bases the Goldberg Variations on the aria's bass line and harmonic structure. This allows for extraordinary variety in texture, form, and mood across the variations, while keeping a consistent foundation.The aria itself is simple and elegant, consisting of two balanced halves, each repeated. Its serene tone contrasts with the technical brilliance and contrapuntal complexity found in many of the following variations. Yet, the aria's emotional restraint and clarity set the tone for the entire cycle.Over the centuries, the Goldberg Variations have come to be seen as a pinnacle of keyboard composition. The aria, both opening and closing the work, serves as a kind of spiritual bookend—calm, contemplative, and timeless. Performers often approach it with reverence, as a moment of stillness and symmetry amid musical adventure.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Goldberg Variations, BMV 988 – the aria. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

EDUARDO PEÑALVER BIO Eduardo M. Peñalver is President of Seattle University and previously served as the Dean of Cornell Law School. A coming home of sorts given his formative years were spent in Puyallup and Tacoma. Professor Peñalver's legal scholarship focuses on property and land use, as well as law and religion. His work explores the way in which the law mediates the interests of individuals and communities. His writing on property has appeared in numerous leading law journals. His book, Property Outlaws (co-authored with Sonia Katyal), published by Yale University Press in February 2010, explores the vital role of disobedience within the evolution of property law. His most recent book, An Introduction to Property Theory (co-authored with Gregory Alexander), was published by Cambridge University Press in 2011. Professor Peñalver received his B.A. from Cornell University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. Between college and law school, he studied philosophy and theology as a Rhodes Scholar at Oriel College, Oxford. Upon completing law school, he clerked for Judge Guido Calabresi of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and at the Supreme Court for Justice John Paul Stevens. Professor Peñalver previously served as the John P. Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School (2012-2014) and taught at Cornell Law School (2006-2012) and at Fordham Law School (2003-2006). He has also been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Yale Law School. RELATED LINKS Wikipedia Seattle University  Property Outlaws (book) On Palestine stance (article) Remembering Justice RBG (article) GENERAL INFO| TOP OF THE GAME: Official website: https://topofthegame-thepod.com/ RSS Feed: https://feed.podbean.com/topofthegame-thepod/feed.xml Hosting service show website: https://topofthegame-thepod.podbean.com/ Javier's LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/javiersaade  SUPPORT & CONNECT: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/96934564 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551086203755 Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOPOFGAMEpod Subscribe on Podbean: https://www.podbean.com/site/podcatcher/index/blog/vLKLE1SKjf6G Email us: info@topofthegame-thepod.com   THANK YOU FOR LISTENING – AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PLATFORMS

This Day in Legal History: Carlin's Seven Dirty Words Get to SCOTUSOn July 3, 1978, the US Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, affirming the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority to reprimand New York radio station WBAI for airing George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" comedy routine. The 5-4 ruling centered on Carlin's sketch, which listed words inappropriate for public broadcast. The Court held that the FCC could regulate indecent material on public airwaves during times when children might be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized that broadcast media have unique accessibility to children and thus require special considerations. This ruling underscored the government's role in safeguarding public morality on airwaves, distinguishing broadcast media from other forms of communication due to its pervasive presence and accessibility. The decision sparked ongoing debates about free speech and government regulation, influencing policies on broadcasting standards and the permissible content on public airwaves.A federal district court in Kansas has preliminarily blocked an Education Department rule that protects children from discrimination based on gender identity in schools receiving federal funding. Judge John W. Broomes issued the injunction, affecting Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming. This rule, which extends Title IX protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, has now been blocked in 14 states, following similar injunctions last month.Judge Broomes, appointed by Trump, found that the states are likely to succeed in their claim that the Biden Administration exceeded its authority by expanding the definition of sex discrimination. The states argued that the regulation's definition of sexual harassment would suppress the speech of students who believe sex is immutable and binary, and who use biologically accurate pronouns. Broomes agreed, stating that the rule's definition of sex-based harassment is impermissibly vague under the Administrative Procedure Act.This decision is a setback for the Biden Administration's efforts to enhance LGBTQ rights. Since the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which guaranteed same-sex marriage, conservative legal efforts have focused on issues such as transgender bathroom bans, athlete bans, and restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors.The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling. The case, Kansas v. Dep't of Education, is represented by the Kansas Attorney General's Office.Biden's Title IX Transgender Protections Blocked by Kansas JudgeIn light of a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing a criminal obstruction law, lawyers for Jan. 6 Capitol rioters are preparing to challenge convictions and seek reduced sentences. The Supreme Court's decision requires prosecutors to prove that defendants destroyed or altered documents to convict them under the obstruction statute, impacting over 200 cases related to the Capitol riot.Attorneys have indicated plans to file motions in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss charges or seek resentencing for clients who did not handle documents, particularly those linked to the Oath Keepers. This move will significantly affect cases where the obstruction charge was the sole felony. Carmen Hernandez, a criminal defense lawyer, anticipates various creative legal arguments in response to the ruling.The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on June 28, which favored Capitol rioter Joseph Fischer, has set a new precedent for interpreting the obstruction statute, originally enacted to address evidence destruction post-Enron scandal. This ruling is a setback for federal prosecutors who had heavily relied on the statute to charge participants in the Capitol attack. Elizabeth Franklin-Best, appealing for Oath Keepers' leader Stewart Rhodes, expects the ruling to substantially impact his sentence, as he was also convicted of seditious conspiracy.Several attorneys for other Jan. 6 defendants have indicated intentions to seek relief based on the Fischer ruling. The DC courts will likely face an influx of filings for years. The broader immediate impact is somewhat limited as only 249 out of over 1,400 charged individuals were affected by the statute, with 52 cases having obstruction as the only felony.The Justice Department is still evaluating the ruling's implications, and early signals suggest prosecutors might not concede in all cases. Some defense lawyers are preparing to argue that the initial indictments were flawed under the new interpretation. However, outcomes will likely vary, with hurdles for those who pled guilty before the ruling, and effectiveness depending on individual judges and defendants.The Supreme Court's re-interpretation of the obstruction statute, requiring proof of document destruction or alteration, is critical. This change affects the foundation of many convictions and challenges the prosecutorial approach, necessitating a reassessment of cases and potentially leading to significant legal revisions and reductions in sentences.Jan. 6 Rioters to Request Relief After Supreme Court RulingUS law firms are quickly capitalizing on recent Supreme Court decisions that limit federal agency powers. Within hours of these rulings, firms began sending updates and hosting webinars to explain the implications to their clients. The Supreme Court's decisions, made over three days, restrict agencies' use of internal judges, overturn the Chevron deference principle (which required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws), and revive challenges related to statute limitations, potentially leading to more lawsuits over old regulations.Experts believe these rulings will significantly boost administrative law challenges, particularly benefiting firms that frequently contest federal regulations. Many lawyers have reported a surge in client inquiries, noting that the end of Chevron deference might lead businesses to pursue more litigation due to increased chances of success. The statute of limitations decision is also expected to result in more legal actions, though some attorneys predict a gradual increase rather than an immediate surge in new cases.Some attorneys highlight that the post-Chevron landscape is creating uncertainty and questions among clients across various industries. There is an expectation that while some companies may adopt a more aggressive litigation strategy, others might prefer lobbying to challenge regulations, as many corporate clients are cautious about escalating legal expenses.Overall, the Supreme Court's rulings are reshaping the legal environment, prompting law firms to guide clients through this evolving landscape and capitalize on emerging opportunities.US law firms smell opportunity as Supreme Court guts agency powers | ReutersIn my column, I argue that the IRS's shift to a broader audit mandate for all high-income taxpayers could undermine tax compliance improvements. The IRS needs to reassess and refine its audit strategies to optimize resources and maximize compliance, particularly among the wealthiest individuals. I propose a hybrid audit strategy that ensures nearly 100% audit coverage for the top 1% of income earners, with progressively lower rates for lower high-income brackets. This approach would be more effective than the current broad mandate, which lacks specific metrics for measuring success and could fail to capture significant non-compliance.Previously, the IRS had a directive to audit at least 8% of returns for individuals with incomes over $10 million, which was a focused and measurable effort. The new policy, however, aims for broader scrutiny without clear methods to gauge effectiveness, raising concerns about its impact on audit rates and overall compliance. My suggested hybrid approach would combine the precision of the former directive with a progressive audit threshold system, concentrating IRS resources where they can yield the highest return.Focusing on high-income taxpayers with the greatest potential for avoidance ensures better deterrence of tax evasion. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's report supports this, showing that audits of high-income individuals are more productive. By defining specific audit coverage thresholds for the highest income brackets, the IRS can optimize its efforts and expand compliance audits down the income brackets.The critical legal element here is the need for targeted and measurable audit strategies. Specific metrics are essential to ensure the IRS's audit efforts are efficient and effective, allowing the agency to allocate resources where they can achieve the greatest impact on revenue and compliance.IRS Hybrid Audit Approach Best Bet to Scrutinize Rich Taxpayers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day, June 21st, in legal history, flag burning was held to be protected by the First Amendment when the Supreme Court decision was handed down in Texas v. Johnson. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a Texas flag desecration law violated the First Amendment. The case revolved around Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned a U.S. flag during protests at the 1984 Republican National Convention. He was charged under a Texas law criminalizing flag desecration, but his conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.Justice William J. Brennan Jr., writing for the majority, argued that expressive conduct, including flag burning, is protected by the First Amendment. The Court rejected Texas' argument that it was trying to prevent breaches of the peace and protect the flag as a symbol of nationhood. Brennan emphasized that the government cannot ban expression simply because it may provoke violence or is disagreeable, as such expression lies at the core of First Amendment values.In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens focused on the value of the flag. Rehnquist likened flag burning to "fighting words," while Stevens expressed concern about the potential devaluation of the flag's symbolic nature.The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Texas v. Johnson decision a year later in United States v. Eichman (1990) by striking down the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was enacted in response to the earlier ruling. Since then, flag burning has been a contentious issue, with repeated attempts in Congress to overturn the Court's decision through a constitutional amendment. However, these attempts have fallen short of the required votes.Stephen Swedlow, a former partner at Quinn Emanuel, made a somewhat surprising career move by leaving the prestigious Big Law firm to become a traffic court judge in Cook County, Illinois. Swedlow, who had a successful career handling major litigation cases and earning millions of dollars, decided to pursue public service and put his skills to use in the judiciary. Partners at top law firms typically stay until retirement, but Swedlow chose to step down and invest nearly $1 million of his own money to serve as a judge at the lowest levels of the state's judiciary.In his new role, Swedlow presides over DUI trials and traffic violations, handling as many as 300 cases a day, mostly through Zoom. Despite the change from high-profile billion-dollar court fights to the less glamorous traffic court, Swedlow finds fulfillment in the human drama and the opportunity to contribute to the legal system. He has adjusted to the administrative tasks involved in organizing Zoom meetings and managing the proceedings.During his time at Quinn Emanuel, Swedlow led significant cases, including defending Qualcomm against Apple in a trade secrets lawsuit and representing health insurance companies in a suit over unpaid Obamacare subsidies. The firm could potentially earn $185 million in fees from one of Swedlow's cases, but the final payment is pending appeals.Swedlow's decision to transition to the bench surprised some colleagues, but he expressed a desire for a better work-life balance and more time with his children. Despite the substantial pay cut, he felt he had already made enough money and was ready for a new challenge in public service. Swedlow hopes to become a civil trial court judge in the future, but for now, he is working his way up the judicial ladder, handling small claims, personal injury, and eviction cases.This story is offered here just as an example of a potential landing place for folks looking to make a move. Top Quinn Emanuel Partner Starts Over as Traffic Court JudgeDisciplinary proceedings have begun against John Eastman, the lawyer behind former President Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Eastman faces 11 disciplinary charges related to his development of a controversial legal strategy aimed at helping Trump stay in power by disrupting the counting of state electoral votes. The strategy involved encouraging Vice President Mike Pence to consider slates of electors filed by pro-Trump activists in seven states, even though no legislatures had adopted Eastman's plan. Pence's aides strongly resisted the plan, arguing that he lacked the legal authority and warning that courts would not uphold it.Eastman's plan was designed to avoid going to court and instead relied on key actors asserting their power to carry out the preferred actions. He argues that his advice was a tenable interpretation of the law and that a good-faith dispute should not result in professional consequences. During the proceedings, Eastman defended his claims of voter fraud in Georgia and his suggestion that the 2020 election in Wisconsin could be decertified and Joe Biden removed. Despite the chaos that ensued, Eastman expressed no regret or misgivings about his actions.The disciplinary proceedings could potentially result in Eastman losing his license to practice law in California.John Eastman's plan to keep Trump in power faces a reckoning, as authorities seek his disbarment - POLITICOTrump Lawyer Eastman's License in Jeopardy at Disciplinary TrialConservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has written a commentary in the Wall Street Journal purporting to defend himself against allegations of ethical misconduct raised by news outlet ProPublica. Alito addressed the "charges" made by ProPublica journalists that he failed to recuse himself from cases involving entities connected to hedge fund founder Paul Singer and failed to report certain gifts on mandatory financial disclosure forms. Alito dismissed both charges as invalid. He explained that the private flight to Alaska, which took place in 2008, was provided by Singer, who allowed him to occupy an unoccupied seat. A moment's reflection reveals this to be a nonsensical statement – of course the seat was unoccupied, what is the alternative, he sat on Singer's lap for the ride? Does it only give the appearance of impropriety if someone was booted from the seat in favor of Alito? Alito stated that he stayed in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge and considered accommodations and transportation for social events as non-reportable gifts, as commonly interpreted by justices. He further stated that he only carried on conversations with Singer a handful of times at events attended by other people as well, like dinner parties. He emphasized that the flight to Alaska was the only instance where he accepted transportation for a purely social event. Alito asserted that he had no obligation to recuse himself from cases connected to Singer and claimed he was unaware of Singer's connection in a particular case heard by the Supreme Court in 2014. The court has faced ethics controversies recently, and public confidence in the judiciary has declined according to opinion polls.US Supreme Court's Alito defends against ethics questions | ReutersJustice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Its Readers - WSJJustice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the CourtCoinbase, the prominent cryptocurrency exchange, launched a unique legal defense strategy months before it became the target of a major crackdown by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company filed briefs as amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," in two other crypto-related lawsuits brought by the SEC, aiming to shape court rulings on key legal questions that are now central to its own case. While amicus briefs are common at the U.S. Supreme Court, they are filed in only 0.1% of cases in federal trial courts. Coinbase's strategy involved trying to influence legal precedents in its favor, even though the rulings in those cases would not be binding in its own lawsuit. The company argued that the SEC lacks authority to regulate certain digital assets as securities and criticized the SEC's misapplication of the legal test for determining securities status. Coinbase also contended that the SEC failed to provide clear guidelines, violating participants' right to due process. The SEC recently sued Coinbase, alleging that it operated an unregistered exchange and offered securities without proper registration. Coinbase's legal push reflects the industry's efforts to shape the regulatory landscape and establish favorable legal interpretations for cryptocurrencies.Coinbase waged unusual legal defense ahead of SEC's crypto crackdown | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

IntroductionIf you ask the average American on the street what religious freedom is, you will get all sorts of different ideas. Some places, you will hear: “keep your religion to yourself. Haven't you heard of the separation of Church and State?” Others might answer: “People are free to believe whatever they want. Who am I to judge if they're right or not?” Still others might claim that religious freedom means the ability to pray privately however you want.None of these are what religious freedom actually is specifically. But it should also be noted that the American constitutional notion of religious freedom is not precisely what the Catholic Church holds religious freedom to be. And, so, the object of today's exploration is to look at what religious freedom is in the United States of America. Then, more importantly, to view what religious freedom is, in principle, as defined by the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council. Separation of Church and StateThe First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the first of the ten amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights, adopted on December 15, 1791, reads thusly:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”For our purposes we will focus on the first phrase: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.I do not have the time or space here to provide an exhaustive account of American jurisprudence on the matter of religious liberty. But, I do want to draw out a few key moments in American History where this question came up and which will give us a clearer view of what religious freedom is.Thomas Jefferson's Danbury LetterIn a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson wrote:“GentlemenThe affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem (Danbury Letter).”He wrote this letter in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists in order to explain his views on federalism and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. The main meaning of his “wall of separation between Church & State” is an assurance that the government would not interfere with the church of the Danbury Baptists or give special treatment to any particular religion or sect. Justice Hugo Black, an appointee of Franklin Roosevelt to the Supreme Court, would even refer later to the Danbury explanation as an “almost authoritative declaration” of the Founders' intent for the Establishment Clause (cf. Bill of Rights Institute).Two days after sending this letter, though, Jefferson attended a religious service in the House of Representatives location in the Capitol. As Daniel Roeber notes: “Jefferson and others recognized the benefits of developing a national identity that transcended interdenominational division (Roeber).” Yet, since 1795, public worship was administered at the partially completed Capitol Building each Sunday at noon (cf. ibid).Religious liberty was the motivation of the Plymouth Pilgrims and many Catholics who settled in Maryland. However, the colonial period was far from united on religious matters. Protestant sects disagreed amongst themselves. Catholics were seen as untrustworthy papists of low social stature. Jewish people were tolerated, at best. The nascent country needed an identity which transcended these divisions. The importance of developing a national identity was something that would take over a hundred years more as most identified most readily with their own state. Lemon V. Kurtzman and the Three Pronged Test (1971)Let us now skip forward quite a bit to 1971. In that year, a case was brought to the Supreme Court in which the Court considered whether a law in Pennsylvania violated the Establishment Clause. The law reimbursed religious schools with state funds for textbooks and salaries for teachers for non-public, non-secular schools. The Court responded 8-0 with a three-pronged test for determining whether a given statute is constitutional. The government may assist religion only if:* The primary purpose of the assistance is secular* The assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and * There is no excessive entanglement between church and stateIn this specific case, the Pennsylvania law was struck down because of excessive entanglement between church and state. It is worth noticing here what is implicit: there is nothing wrong, in the American understanding, with some implicit entanglement between Church and State. The issue, ultimately, is when the line is crossed towards “excessive.”Marsh v. Chambers (1983)The Nebraska legislature opened each of its sessions with a publicly funded chaplain offering a prayer. The Supreme Court, in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) determined that this was NOT a violation of the Establishment Clause. Though this instance does not pass the “Lemon” three-pronged test, the Justices argued that there is a long historical custom going back to the Continental Congress and the very Congress that resulted in the Bill of Rights. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country (Citation: 463 US 783).”As we saw with the Capitol Building services, there is not a strict and non-transversable wall of separation of Church and State. Other Supreme Court CasesI now want to walk through several other Supreme Court cases that touched on religious liberty. Again, this list is not exhaustive, but it can help us round out our picture.Reynolds v. United States (1879)In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States, the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy. They claimed that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but that government can nonetheless punish acts which it judges to be criminal, regardless of religious belief.Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)As of 1961, the State of Maryland had a requirement that a candidate for public office needed to declare that they believed in God in order to be eligible for the position. Unanimously, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court agreed that this gives preference to believers who were willing to publicly profess; therefore, Maryland was aiding theistic religions and beliefs overr atheistic ones.Engel v. Vitale (1962)In the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the Court ruled 6-1 that a New York prayer to begin the school day was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause despite being a nondenominational prayer. Abington v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett (1963)The following year in 1963, the Court heard the case of Abington v. Schempp and the related case of Murray v. Curlett. In both cases, public schools were involving students in daily Bible readings and in the latter case of the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Both of these cases were seen as violating both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)In 1972, Amish parents sued the State of Wisconsin for requiring that their children attend school until the age of 16. The unanimous decision held that the Amish teens were exempt from the state law of requiring 14 to 16 year olds to attend school because the Amish religion required a living apart from worldly influences. In other words, though it was in the state's interest that the children receive two years more schooling, this did not outweigh the free exercise of the religion of the Amish.McDaniel v. Paty (1978)A Tennessee law barring clergymen from serving in public office was challenged in 1978 in McDaniel v. Paty. The Court unanimously ruled that this law was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment) because it made holding public office contingent on surrendering religious beliefs. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)In 1993, the Court heard Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. There were ordinances passed by the city of Hialeah, Florida that banned animal sacrifice. These laws were not written in a neutral and generally applicable way. They specifically targeted Santeria, a Afro-Caribbean religion based on Yoruba and some Catholic elements. Because animal sacrifice is an important part of Santeria, the Court ruled that the ordinances were designed as a form of religious persecution in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.  Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)The Sante Fe Independent School District of Texas in 2000 had a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld an appellate court's ruling that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The school district tried to argue that because it was student led and initiated, it was private speech, and, thus, protected under the First Amendment. However, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that it was not private speech because it was done over the P.A. system, by a student body representative, under school faculty supervision, and under school policy. Also, it did not pass the “Lemon” test because it did not have a secular purpose and was implemented with the purpose of endorsing school prayer.Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)California's Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow in 2004 investigated the policy requiring each elementary school class to say the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Michael Newdow, a father of one of the students, challenged this because of the words therein contained of “under God.” Because Newdow did not have custody of the child, he did not have standing to bring the case to court. However, in concurring opinions, Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas, said that the words “under God” do NOT violate the Establishment Clause.As the Bill of Rights Institute reports:“Further, they noted, ‘the phrase ‘under God' in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nation's leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religion's role in our Nation's history abound.' They concluded that ‘the recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase ‘under God' cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it' (Bill of Rights Institute).”Van Orden v. Perry (2005)In a similar case in Van Orden V. Perry in 2005, in a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on Texas State Capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause. There were 38 other monuments on the grounds and highlighted different parts of Texan history. Justice William Rehnquist argued that the monument had a religious message, however, it was presented in a context showing that:“[a] secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law.” Therefore, the religious message is part of a broader context of cultural heritage and patrimony of the people of Texas. Teaching Evolution in SchoolsThere are two Supreme Court cases worth looking at briefly which discuss the teaching of evolution in schools. Generally, there is a perceived discrepancy of considerable magnitude between the theory of evolution and the evidence for creation from the Book of Genesis. I am not getting into that minefield right now, but these cases show how religious liberty and the government of the United States interact.Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)In Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968, Arkansas passed a law saying that public school teachers were banned from teaching evolution because it was in contradiction with the Bible account of creation.Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the majority opinion:“In the present case, there can be no doubt that Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens (Epperson v. Arkansas).”He continued to argue that the law of Arkansas is clearly not a religiously neutral act. Instead it was the targeting of a particular theory on Biblical grounds, literally read. Therefore, it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)Nineteen years later in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, the Court examined a Louisiana law forbidding the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless it was accompanied by an equal treatment of creationism. In a 7-2 decision, the Court declared that this law violated the Establishment Clause because it failed all three parts of the “Lemon” test. It lacked secular purpose, endorsed the view that a supernatural being created mankind, and it entangled the interests of Church and State by seeking “to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose (Citation: 482 US 578).”The American View of Religious LibertyIn sum, the evolution of religious liberty in the United States has its basis on the cultural milieu of the time. In the colonial period and in the early days of the country, there were few true atheists. Deism was exceptionally popular, but even Deists acknowledge a belief in the Creator. So, a nondenominational prayer to the Creator at the state of a session of Congress was a forgone conclusion. Since that time, the United States of America has become far more cultural, religiously, and politically diverse. As a result of this undeniable diversity, it cannot be said that the United States is currently a Judeo-Christian nation, even if the case can strongly be made that it began that way. Private speech and religious practice is unambiguously protected. However, as we have seen, the nature of the public exercise of religion is questioned when public funds are in the mix. Each of the examples mentioned above, and where problems usually arise, is in publicly-funded schools, government property or buildings, and in relation to public office. However, the Supreme Court has upheld that religious beliefs which are not criminal are protected in the public sphere. A religious person need not check their religion at the door when engaging in public matters (and how could they, really). The First Amendment of the Constitution protects all Americans against the establishment of any one religion to the competition or detriment of any others. Any law which would exclude a person from public life on the basis of religion is unconstitutional. And the free exercise of religion is safeguarded and held in a careful balance with the interests of all other religions, beliefs, and ideas. This reality is a blessing and a curse for Catholics. On the one hand, we have freedom to boldly speak the truth without fear of legal reprisal, within due limits. Yet, on the other hand, there is a bland tolerance of false religions and ideas antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church.The Church's View of Religious FreedomAll of that being said, what is the Catholic view of religious freedom? Is it precisely the American view or are there significant differences? When I speak to American Catholics about this question, there is no real sense of a firm understanding of the Church on the matter. And, frankly, when people read the official Church teaching, they do not understand the nuances offered there. I am going to do my best to help shed some light on the subject! Dignitatis HumanaeOn December 7, 1965, Pope St. Paul VI promulgated a Declaration on Religious Freedom which is one of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council. Dignitatis Humanae (DH) is only fifteen paragraph sections long and is highly worth reading in its entirety. What I will offer here is a brief summary and the main conclusions. In the interest of keeping this to the point, I am going to be looking at three questions:* What is religious freedom in the eyes of the Catholic Church?* Why is religious freedom based on human dignity?* How has God revealed religious liberty?What is religious freedom in the eyes of the Catholic Church?God has made Himself known to man, shown us how we are to serve Him, and how we are saved in Christ and come to eternal blessedness. The Church unequivocally affirms in Dignitatis Humanae that:“We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you' (Matt. 28: 19-20) (DH, 1).”Many of those who are suspicious of the Second Vatican Council read this not as the full throated profession of Christ and His Church that it is. Instead, they read the word “subsist” in an uncharitable and ignorant way. We could say that the one true religion IS the Catholic and Apostolic Church, but subsists is actually a richer word. Subsists means to begin in a certain way and remain in that way. In other words, there is no true religion apart from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, as our Lord began it and has constantly sustained it to this day. The Church which, of course, is His own Mystical Body.The Council Fathers continue:“On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it (DH, 1).”Elsewhere in Vatican II in the documents Lumen Gentium and Ad Gentes we hear: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved… The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a ‘bodily' manner and not ‘in his heart' (LG, 14).”For those who claim that Vatican II is weak on doctrine and the truth and is overly ambiguous or some other such nonsense, it is abundantly clear that they never read the documents or they have read them in an uncharitable and ignorant way.At any rate, all of this being said, what is religious freedom? The Council Fathers write:“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ (DH, 1).”So, the moral duty of man towards the Catholic Church remains untouched by religious freedom. What is vital to understand the Church's view is that phrase: “immunity from coercion in civil society.” That is the key. A more substantial definition is then given, with very official verbiage:“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits (DH, 2).”The Church has always held to this doctrine. We know, for example, that the Church has always condemned forced conversions as illegitimate and compelled baptisms as invalid. As St. John Paul II often said: the Faith is always proposed, not imposed.'Why is religious freedom based on human dignity?This right to religious freedom is rooted in human dignity. The Church even calls for this right to be enshrined in constitutional law throughout the world. Our human dignity points to the fact that God endowed man with reason and free will and therefore personal responsibility. We are impelled by human nature and bound by moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. Once we know the truth, we are bound to adhere to it and order our lives towards it. The Church declares that religious freedom is thus necessary because:“... men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom (DH, 2).”There is no love without freedom, there is no seeking of the truth without freedom. So, religious freedom does not belong to feelings and subjective disposition. No. It belongs to the very nature of the human person. Faith comes from what is heard. And as truth is discovered, “it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it,” to use another phrase from Dignitatis Humanae (DH, 2). Personal though this assent is, religious freedom also extends to religious communities. They should not be hindered:“either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties (DH, 4).”Nor should they be hindered from public teaching and witness of faith, whether spoken or written. As the preeminent religious community, all of these freedoms belong to the family as well.How has God revealed religious liberty?In Divine Revelation, the doctrine of religious freedom finds its roots. The Council Fathers write:“Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions (DH, 9).”First and foremost, man's response to God in faith must be free for it to be legitimate. No one can be forced to become Catholic. The act of faith is a free act. Forcing someone to love is not love at all. As Dignitatis Humanae states:“It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life (DH, 10).”God is very clear, however, in what He has revealed that we are to boldly proclaim the truth. Therefore, are we to be “tolerant” and “accepting” of other religions and simply have a bland indifference? Absolutely not! The Council Fathers write:“The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith (DH, 14).”Freedom from CoercionFreedom from coercion in religious matters is the crux of the Church's view of religious liberty. Really, it pertains directly to the establishing of an environment in which a person may freely seek and adhere to the one, true religion. Though there are elements of truth outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. If someone outside the visible bounds of the Church is saved, it is only by the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and the instrumentality of the Catholic Church, the sacrament of salvation.We must not be indifferent. We must boldly preach the truth at all times. And we must not be afraid to stand up for these beliefs, even when it is inconvenient. In some contexts doing so can lead to our bodily martyrdom. In the United States of America, the constitutional order is more or less compatible with the free practice of the Catholic religion. However, we must be cognizant that there is a distinct difference between religious freedom in the American idea and the Catholic teaching.The American notion protects us, to an extent, but it is more geared to creating a national identity that transcends religion. This should make any faithful Catholic nervous because it is working. How many American Catholics do you know who are more concerned about being American Catholics than being Catholics who happen to be American? Religious freedom is freedom from coercion. Ultimately, it is freedom FOR the truth, FOR the Catholic Faith. We cannot forget this, lest we descend into a banal coexistence or tolerance without the drive to share the fullness of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot be indifferent and we cannot be content to allow anyone to stay in error. We must respect their right to religious freedom by not coercing them and respecting their journey, in good conscience. But the task and privilege of evangelization remains in full force. Get full access to Good Distinctions at www.gooddistinctions.com/subscribe

King Charles III has sat in St. Edwards' Chair, been anointed with oil, and enjoyed all manner of pomp.  Akhil finds important echoes of the elevation of another III - George - back at the time of the American founding.  In a busy week, we also note the release of Justice John Paul Stevens' private papers, with implications for important cases including - surprise! - Moore v. Harper.  Finally, the New York Times has a lengthy, lead article about a controversial law school, and we offer our take on that.

The third season of Amarica's Constitution begins with a special guest, as the star of the podcast “Strict Scrutiny,” Professor Kate Shaw, spends an hour with us.  Like Andy and Akhil, she attended the oral arguments in Moore v. Harper - as she had attended many arguments when she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens.  Her insights on clerking for the Court are particularly timely, since Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in Bush v. Gore, which listeners know has been enjoying a lamentable rehabilitation, it seems, as the Moore case is argued and the infamous case keeps popping up.  Professor Shaw also scoops her own podcast with a fascinating insight that links the January 6 commissions actions this past week with the Moore case, and you are there to hear it!

West Virginia v. EPAThe U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency on June 30, 2022, determining (in a 6-3 ruling) that, without explicit congressional instruction, the EPA cannot curb emissions at existing power plants by forcing a change to renewable energy sources (as opposed to directing specific emissions reductions from the power plants themselves). Chief Justice Roberts, writing the majority, declared that mandating a switch to renewables is such a major shift that it falls under the “major questions doctrine.”  That doctrine – which is a creation of the Supreme Court – has not been fully developed, but has been presented as a limit on the power of the Executive Branch, requiring Congress to provide specific direction through legislation before the President may act.  What constitutes a “major question” and when it is to be invoked is unclear.  The West Virginia case involved a regulation from the Obama-era that called for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired power plants, which could take the form of replacement of those plants with renewable energy. That regulation was withdrawn by the Trump administration, which issued a regulation much more limited in scope. The Biden administration then withdrew the Trump-era regulation and is working on a new regulation. So, the Obama-era regulation at issue in West Virginia was not operative, which would normally make the case moot. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that because the rule could be reinstated, the case could proceed, underscoring the majority's strong intent to create the major question doctrine.  The doctrine is presented as a check on executive power, but also represents a potentially significant expansion of judicial power. It is the Court that apparently will decide the parameters of what constitutes a major question, when and under what circumstances it will be applied, and when the President needs explicit authorization from Congress to take action.   Though West Virginia v. EPA hinders EPA authority, it still leaves open several avenues for effective government climate action. The case does not touch on local and state government ability to regulate pollutants, and does not affect the EPA's regulation of high-emitting sectors such as transportation. Additionally, this Court decision does not affect new power plants, only existing plants. Though it prevents the EPA from mandating renewable energy for existing power plants, the EPA can still require specific emissions reductions from individual plants. Finally, West Virginia v. EPA highlights the importance of passing effective congressional climate change legislation with explicit authority for the executive branch. West Virginia v. EPA is a further reminder that climate change cannot be fought without bold congressional action. For a more detailed discussion, we invite you to listen to the long version of this podcast on this website, and check out the links below.Who is Professor Dan Farber?Dan Farber is one of the nation's most cited and influential scholars of environmental and constitutional law, and is faculty director of the Center of Law, Energy, and Environment at Berkeley Law. After law school, he clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court, giving him an intimate look into the workings of the nation's highest court. His most recent book is Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits on Presidential Power (UC Press 2021). Dan Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Life Member of the American Law Institute.Learn MoreWest Virginia v. EPA: A Quick Explainer - Legal PlanetEmerging Answers to Major Questions - Legal PlanetOpinion | The Supreme Court's EPA Decision Is More Gloom Than Doom - The New York TimesThe Supreme Court's EPA Ruling Is Going to Be Very, Very Expensive - The AtlanticWest Virginia v. EPA and the Future of the Administrative State - Legal Aggregate - Stanford Law School

West Virginia v. EPAThe U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency on June 30, 2022, determining (in a 6-3 ruling) that, without explicit congressional instruction, the EPA cannot curb emissions at existing power plants by forcing a change to renewable energy sources (as opposed to directing specific emissions reductions from the power plants themselves). Chief Justice Roberts, writing the majority, declared that mandating a switch to renewables is such a major shift that it falls under the “major questions doctrine.”  That doctrine – which is a creation of the Supreme Court – has not been fully developed, but has been presented as a limit on the power of the Executive Branch, requiring Congress to provide specific direction through legislation before the President may act.  What constitutes a “major question” and when it is to be invoked is unclear.  The West Virginia case involved a regulation from the Obama-era that called for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired power plants, which could take the form of replacement of those plants with renewable energy. That regulation was withdrawn by the Trump administration, which issued a regulation much more limited in scope. The Biden administration then withdrew the Trump-era regulation and is working on a new regulation. So, the Obama-era regulation at issue in West Virginia was not operative, which would normally make the case moot. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that because the rule could be reinstated, the case could proceed, underscoring the majority's strong intent to create the major question doctrine.  The doctrine is presented as a check on executive power, but also represents a potentially significant expansion of judicial power. It is the Court that apparently will decide the parameters of what constitutes a major question, when and under what circumstances it will be applied, and when the President needs explicit authorization from Congress to take action.   Though West Virginia v. EPA hinders EPA authority, it still leaves open several avenues for effective government climate action. The case does not touch on local and state government ability to regulate pollutants, and does not affect the EPA's regulation of high-emitting sectors such as transportation. Additionally, this Court decision does not affect new power plants, only existing plants. Though it prevents the EPA from mandating renewable energy for existing power plants, the EPA can still require specific emissions reductions from individual plants. Finally, West Virginia v. EPA highlights the importance of passing effective congressional climate change legislation with explicit authority for the executive branch. West Virginia v. EPA is a further reminder that climate change cannot be fought without bold congressional action. For a more detailed discussion, we invite you to listen to the long version of this podcast on this website, and check out the links below.Who is Professor Dan Farber?Dan Farber is one of the nation's most cited and influential scholars of environmental and constitutional law, and is faculty director of the Center of Law, Energy, and Environment at Berkeley Law. After law school, he clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court, giving him an intimate look into the workings of the nation's highest court. His most recent book is Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits on Presidential Power (UC Press 2021). Dan Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Life Member of the American Law Institute.Learn MoreWest Virginia v. EPA: A Quick Explainer - Legal PlanetEmerging Answers to Major Questions - Legal PlanetOpinion | The Supreme Court's EPA Decision Is More Gloom Than Doom - The New York TimesThe Supreme Court's EPA Ruling Is Going to Be Very, Very Expensive - The AtlanticWest Virginia v. EPA and the Future of the Administrative State - Legal Aggregate - Stanford Law School

In the past few weeks alone, the Supreme Court has delivered a firestorm of conservative legal victories. States now have far less leeway to restrict gun permits. The right to abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. The Environmental Protection Agency has been kneecapped in its ability to regulate carbon emissions, and by extension, all executive branch agencies will see their power significantly diminished.But to focus only on this particular Supreme Court term is to miss the bigger picture: In the past few decades, conservative court majorities have dragged this country's laws to the right on almost every issue imaginable. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door for states to pass restrictive voting laws. Rucho v. Common Cause limited the court's ability to curb partisan gerrymandering. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed a torrent of campaign spending. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 weakened unions. A whole slew of cases, including some decided on the shadow docket during the Covid-19 pandemic, undercut federal agencies' power to help govern in an era of congressional gridlock. And that's only a partial list.Kate Shaw is a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, a co-host of the legal podcast Strict Scrutiny and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. In this episode, she walks me through the most significant Supreme Court cases over the past 20 years, from the court's decision to hand George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, to the assertion of an individual's right to bear arms.Along the way, we discuss the right's decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court's next term, and more.Mentioned:“After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American Democracy” by Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stephane Wolton“The Most Important Study in the Abortion Debate” by Annie LowreyBook recommendations:The Turnaway Study by Diana Greene FosterTorn Apart by Dorothy RobertsWho Decides? by Jeffrey S. Sutton51 Imperfect Solutions by Jeffrey S. SuttonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Isaac Jones; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Kristina Samulewski, David A. Kaplan, Ian Millhiser, Aziz Rana and Kate Redburn.

Hello friends,In 2017, Donald Trump repeatedly lied that between 3 and 5 million unauthorized immigrants had voted for Hillary Clinton. In the last few weeks, Trump has resurrected his lie during campaign rallies for the Republican primary candidates he has endorsed — whipping up fears of “open borders and horrible elections,” and calling for stricter voter ID laws and proof of citizenship at the ballot box.Trump endorsees have been amplifying the lie. J.D. Vance, the Trump-backed winner of last week's Ohio Republican Senate primary, claimed that President Biden's immigration policy has resulted in “more Democrat voters pouring into this country.”In fact, voter fraud is exceptionally rare, and claims that widespread numbers of undocumented immigrants are voting have been repeatedly discredited.There is a problem of foreigners influencing American elections, however — a problem that has nothing to do with immigrants or fraudulent voting. The problem is foreign money flowing into U.S. campaigns.Some of the flow is illegal. Last October, Lev Parnas, a Florida businessman who helped Rudy Giuliani's effort to dig up dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine, was convicted of funneling a Russian entrepreneur's money to U.S. politicians.The real scandal is how much foreign money flows into U.S. elections legally.The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the gates. It allows foreigners to influence U.S. elections through their investments in politically active American corporations. The (then) five-justice conservative majority said that when it comes to political speech, the identity of the speaker is irrelevant, and that more speech is always better. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the logic of the Court's ruling would allow foreign spending on American elections, threatening American interests. Stevens was right. If the identity of the speaker doesn't matter and more speech is always better, what's to stop foreign spending on U.S. elections?Non-Americans whose money is now flowing into American campaigns — mostly into those of Republican candidates — include Russian oligarchs, the Saudi royal family, European financiers, Chinese corporate conglomerates, and many other people and organizations that owe their allegiance to powers other than the United States.  This growing problem emerges from three realities:First, foreign investors now own a whopping 40 percent of the shares of American corporations. That's up from just 5 percent in 1982.Second, American corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections — not counting their separate corporate political action committees or personal donations by executives and employees. Much of this spending is through dark money channels that opened after the Citizens United decision.Third, by law, corporate directors and managers are accountable to their shareholders, including foreign shareholders — not to America. As the then-CEO of U.S.-based Exxon Mobil Corp. unabashedly stated, “I'm not a U.S. company and I don't make decisions based on what's good for the U.S.”The second and third of these points pose substantial threats to American democracy on their own. Add in the first, and you've got a sieve through which non-Americans — whose interests don't necessarily correspond to the interests of the United States — assert growing influence over American politics.Follow the money. In recent years, Russian billionaire oligarchs have owned significant amounts of Facebook, Twitter, and Airbnb. Saudi Arabia owns about 10 percent of U.S.-based Uber and has a seat on its board. Many of America's largest corporations with substantial foreign ownership (including AT&T, Comcast, and Citigroup) have contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Attorney Generals Association, which in turn bankrolled the pro-Trump rally on the morning of the January 6 insurrection.  What to do about this? The Center for American Progress has a sensible proposal: It recommends that no U.S. corporation with 5 percent or more of its stock under foreign ownership or 1 percent or more controlled by a single foreign owner be allowed to spend money to sway the outcomes of U.S. elections or ballot measures. Corporate governance experts and regulators agree that these thresholds capture the level of ownership necessary to influence corporate decision-making.Okay, but how to get this proposal enacted, when big American-based corporations with significant foreign investment have so much influence over Congress?Democrats should make this an issue in the run-up to the 2022 midterms. While Republicans rail against the utterly fake danger to the United States of undocumented immigrants voting in American elections, Democrats should rail against the real danger to American democracy of foreign money affecting American elections through foreign investments in American corporations.What do you think? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Today on "The Daily Signal Podcast," we are featuring the latest episode of "SCOTUS 101" a sister podcast on the Heritage Podcast Network. Subscribe to SCOTUS 101: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scotus-101/id1282064006This week saw the biggest leak in Supreme Court history: a leaked opinion. And not just any opinion, but an early draft of a purported majority decision in the Dobbs case, which would, if issued, overrule Roe v. Wade and return abortion policy to the people of each state. Zack and GianCarlo chat about the leak, what it means for the Court, and what ought to happen to the leaker. They also discuss all the other news that was drowned out by the leak including the memorial service for Justice John Paul Stevens and a major First Amendment opinion issued this week. GianCarlo then interviews Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, and they talk about her career and her legal strategy in Dobbs. Finally, Zack quizzes GianCarlo about Justice Stevens' life and career.Here's a link to Zack and John Malcolm's article about whether the leaker can be criminally prosecuted. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week saw the biggest leak in Supreme Court history: a leaked opinion. And not just any opinion, but an early draft of a purported majority decision in the Dobbs case, which would, if issued, overrule Roe v. Wade and return abortion policy to the people of each state. Zack and GianCarlo chat about the leak, what it means for the Court, and what ought to happen to the leaker. They also discuss all the other news that was drowned out by the leak including the memorial service for Justice John Paul Stevens and a major First Amendment opinion issued this week. GianCarlo then interviews Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, and they talk about her career and her legal strategy in Dobbs. Finally, Zack quizzes GianCarlo about Justice Stevens' life and career.Here's a link to Zack and John Malcolm's article about whether the leaker can be criminally prosecuted.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Tiered scrutiny. Despite the undoubted importance of Brown, much of modern equal protection jurisprudence originated in other cases, though not everyone 18/2022 agrees about which other cases. Many scholars assert that the opinion of Justice Harlan Stone in United States v Carolene Products Co. (1938) contained a footnote that was a critical turning point for equal protection jurisprudence, but that assertion is disputed. Whatever its precise origins, the basic idea of the modern approach is that more judicial scrutiny is triggered by purported discrimination that involves "fundamental rights" (such as the right to procreation), and similarly more judicial scrutiny is also triggered if the purported victim of discrimination has been targeted because he or she belongs to a "suspect classification" (such as a single racial group). This modern doctrine was pioneered in Skinner v Oklahoma (1942), which involved depriving certain criminals of the fundamental right to procreate: When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. Until 1976, the Supreme Court usually ended up dealing with discrimination by using one of two possible levels of scrutiny: what has come to be called "strict scrutiny" (when a suspect class or fundamental right is involved), or instead the more lenient "rational basis review". Strict scrutiny means that a challenged statute must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest, and must not have a "less restrictive" alternative. In contrast, rational basis scrutiny merely requires that a challenged statute be "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest. However, in the 1976 case of Craig v Boren, the Court added another tier of scrutiny, called "intermediate scrutiny", regarding gender discrimination. The Court may have added other tiers too, such as "enhanced rational basis" scrutiny, and "exceedingly persuasive basis" scrutiny. All of this is known as "tiered" scrutiny, and it has had many critics, including Justice Thurgood Marshall who argued for a "spectrum of standards in reviewing discrimination", instead of discrete tiers. Justice John Paul Stevens argued for only one level of scrutiny, given that "there is only one Equal Protection Clause". The whole tiered strategy developed by the Court is meant to reconcile the principle of equal protection with the reality that most laws necessarily discriminate in some way. Choosing the standard of scrutiny can determine the outcome of a case, and the strict scrutiny standard is often described as "strict in theory and fatal in fact". In order to select the correct level of scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia urged the Court to identify rights as "fundamental" or identify classes as "suspect" by analyzing what was understood when the Equal Protection Clause was adopted, instead of based upon more subjective factors.

Interview with Professor Gregory Magarian, Professor of law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, with expertise in First and Second Amendment Constitutional law. Professor Magarian served as a judicial clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and has been published widely in leading law journals. This Interview focuses on the NYSRPA v Bruen case currently before the Supreme Court, and it's relationship with the conflict between First and Second Amendment Interests.

Promise, Witness, Remembrance  (on view from April 6 to June 11, 2021) at the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky, was curated by Allison Glenn and reflects on the life of Breonna Taylor, her killing in 2020, and the year of protests that followed. The exhibition is organized around the three words of its title, which emerged from a conversation between curator Allison Glenn and Tamika Palmer, mother of Breonna Taylor, during the exhibition's planning.In "Promise," artists explore ideologies of the United States  through the symbols that uphold it, reflecting on the nation's founding, history, and the promises and realities, both implicit and explicit, contained within them. In "Witness," they address the contemporary moment, building upon the gap between what a nation promises and what it provides through artworks that explore ideas of resistance across time, form, and context. In "Remembrance," they address gun violence and police brutality, their victims, and their legacies.The death of Breonna Taylor, a Black medical worker who was shot and killed by Louisville police officers in March 2020 during a botched raid on her apartment, has been one of the main drivers of wide-scale demonstrations that erupted in the spring and summer over policing and racial injustice in the United States.A grand jury in September indicted  a former Louisville detective involved in the raid, Brett Hankison, for wanton endangerment of neighbors whose apartment was hit when he fired without a clear line of sight into the sliding glass patio door and window of Ms. Taylor's apartment. He pleaded not guilty. No charges were announced against the other two officers who fired shots, and no one was charged for causing Ms. Taylor's deathStephen Reily served as the Director of the Speed Art Museum from April 2017 to June 2021. He is a successful entrepreneur, civic leader, lawyer, and supporter of the arts in building a stronger community. A longtime supporter of the Speed, he served on its Board for 10 years, including several years as Chair of both the Museum's Long-Range Planning Committee and its Curatorial Committee. For four years, Stephen served as Chair and Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of the Creative Capital Foundation, a national grant maker in the arts. He has served as the Chair of the Greater Louisville Project and is a member of the Boards of the Louisville Urban League and the J. Graham Brown Foundation. He also founded Seed Capital Kentucky, a non-profit focused on building a more sustainable future for Kentucky's farmers.As an entrepreneur Reily foundeD IMC, a global leader in brand licensing that has generated over $3 billion in consumer product sales for the Fortune 500 brands it represents. He is also the co-founder of ClickHer, a mobile app publisher, and SUM180,  a digital financial planning service purchased by FlexWage. a national provider of financial wellness solutions. After graduating from Stanford Law School, Stephen clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.  A native of New Orleans, he is married to historian Emily Bingham and they have 3 children.Promise, Witness, Remembrance contributing artists:Terry AdkinsNoel W AndersonErik BranchXavier BurrellMaría Magdalena Campos-PonsNick CaveJon P. CherryBethany CollinsTheaster GatesTyler GerthSam GilliamJon-Sesrie GoffEd HamiltonKerry James MarshallRashid JohnsonKahlil JosephGlenn LigonAmy SheraldLorna SimpsonNari WardHank Willis ThomasAlisha WormsleyT.A. Yero CuratorAllison M. Glenn is an Associate Curator, Contemporary Art at Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. Glenn works across the contemporary program at Crystal Bridges and the Momentary, a new contemporary art space and satellite of Crystal Bridges. Since joining Crystal Bridges in 2018, she has worked with artists at all stages of their careers around themes of history, temporality, language, site, and identity. Community Engagement Strategist and Chair of the National Steering Committee for Promise, Witness, RemembranceToya Northington graduated with a Fine Art degree from Georgia State University and also holds a MSc in Social Work from the University of Louisville. She has exhibited in group and solo exhibitions in Georgia and Kentucky, and has recently been involved in a number of public art projects in Louisville. Working in mixed media and across disciplines, Toya speaks of her work as pushing back at societal expectations, as an act of resistance. As a feminist and social activist she states, “my work is an acknowledgment of traumas too often experienced by women and a means to foster healing and resilience from them.” Toya is the recipient of Art Meets Activism, Artist Enrichment, and The Special grants from the Kentucky Foundation for Women. In 2012 she founded artThrust a youth, art-based, mental health and social justice organization that empowers youth through art. She is currently the Community Engagement Strategist at the Speed Art Museum. Music for the Short Fuse PodcastJeannine Otis recorded the music for this episode of the Short Fuse Podcast. Music has been a part of Jeannine's life since she was born. Having a mother who was a Musical Director and a family that includes the Jones Brothers Hank, Thad, and Elvin formed the basis of exposure to music that began a career that started with Jeannine's debut as a vocalist with the Detroit Symphony with American Youth Performs at age 12.She has shared the stage with great musicians of every genre (especially jazz) who have served as mentors including Grover Washington Jr., Arthur Prysock, Kool and the Gang, Joe Chambers and Donald Byrd, Rudy Mwangozi, Saul Ruin, Stanley Banks bassist, Finnish Jazz composer Heikki Sarmanto and Vishnu Wood, bassist, and his band Safari East.She has been a featured vocalist at many jazz festivals including the Pori Jazz Festival in Finland, JazzMobile with Safari East, and the Universal Temple of the Arts yearly jazz festival and trombonist Art Baron and Friends. Jeannine has also appeared on Broadway in THIS JOINT IS JUMPIN' at the Supper Club in the Edison Hotel with Larry Marshall and the Michael E Smith Big Band and the New York Big Band at Tavern on the Green.She has toured extensively worldwide as a featured vocalist, in theater, and with her own ensemble. Anthony Tomassini of the New York Times labeled Jeannine a “show-stopper” in a review of a Downtown Music Production's version of THE CRADLE WILL ROCK. As the STRAWBERRY WOMAN in Porgy and Bess, Jeannine toured extensively in Europe singing in many of the great opera houses in Europe including those in Rome, Cologne, Venice, and Modena—home of Luciano Pavorotti.Her “little” book THE GATHERING was made into a Musical Theater piece entitled WHO AM I, and debuted at The La MaMa Theater in 2014. She is an honors graduate of Wellesley College (BA) and of Emerson College (MA) and the Director of Music at Saint Marks Church, known for its progressive outreach programming through the arts. Behind the scenes of the Short Fuse PodcastKyle Lee is a media producer for the Short Fuse Podcast as well as for the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and has produced podcasts such as The Daily Arrow, a 2-season, 60-day podcast with devotional and meditative exercises to help navigate our current political climate through the lens of faith, spirituality, and mindfulness. He lives in Harlem with his wife and enjoys writing and performing poetry and spoken word in his spare time. You can reach him at @kyleburtonlee on Instagram and Twitter.Gilda Geist is an intern for the Short Fuse Podcast and a student at Brandeis University, where she is studying journalism, English, and political science. She is a senior editor of her university newspaper, The Justice, as well as a tutor for the Brandeis University English Language Programs. Gilda is based in Boston, MA and enjoys writing, bookbinding, and listening to podcasts.  What to listen to nextIf you liked this episode, you'll like our host Elizabeth Howard's conversation with Gioni Massimiliano, Artistic Director of the New Museum. They spoke about the New Museum's exhibit "Grief and Grievance, Art and Mourning in America", which  features the works of 37 Black artists and was conceived of by the late curator Okwui Enwezor. Listen here.

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Joseph Power, Jr. and Larry Rogers, Jr. of Powers Rogers, LLP (https://www.claggettlaw.com/)   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: Accomplished Chicago trial lawyers Joseph Power, Jr. and Larry Rogers, Jr. of Powers Rogers, LLP explain how they secured justice for the families of two attorneys and a law office secretary who were shot by a disgruntled client who gained unauthorized access to the office due to the failure of building security officers to follow established safety procedures. On December 8, 2006, Joseph Jackson entered a 41-floor professional building at 500 West Madison Street in Chicago, held Allied Barton Security Services officer Robert Brown at gunpoint and demanded to be taken to the 38th floor, where patent lawyer Michael McKenna's office was located. A client of Michael McKenna and an inventor seeking a patent, Joseph Jackson mistakenly thought Michael McKenna had sold his idea and owed him money. Supervising security officer Sidney Chambers knew that Joseph Jackson had been loitering in the building for hours and had suspiciously interacted with officer Robert Brown, but failed to take action. Robert Brown did not follow safety protocol, utilize officer codes to alert his supervising officer to the situation or employ restraint techniques designed to defuse the situation. Instead, he tried to flee the scene and save himself when Joseph Jackson began firing his gun in the law office, fatally shooting Michael McKenna and Allen Hoover and wounding office secretary Ruth Lieb. In 2017, a Cook County, Illinois jury delivered a verdict against Allied Barton Security Services, Sidney Chambers and Joseph Jackson, assigning 60 percent of the responsibility to the deceased Joseph Jackson and 40 percent to Allied Barton in a $30,650,000 verdict.      Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bios: Joseph Power Jr. Joseph A. Power, Jr. is the founding partner of the Power, Rogers, LLP law firm in Chicago, and a prominent trial lawyer focusing on cases involving medical malpractice, trucking collisions, wrongful death, product liability and catastrophic personal injuries. Power received his undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1974 and his Juris Doctor degree from Loyola University of Chicago in 1977.  Power was named as partner in 1984 and the firm became Hayes & Power.  In 1993, the firm became Power, Rogers & Smith, and has recently become Power Rogers, LLP. At the age of 28, Power became the youngest lawyer in the country to obtain a jury verdict in excess of $1 million for his client.  Power was the lead attorney in a trucking case which led to seventy-six criminal convictions, including the former governor of Illinois in the “licenses for bribes” scandal, which triggered the retesting of over 2000 truck drivers has obtained over 200 verdicts and settlements over $1,000,000.  He has the largest jury verdict in Illinois history for a contested liability personal injury case, and in addition, has the largest medical malpractice jury verdict in Illinois history.  In the last two years alone, he has been to verdict in six cases, all leading to seven and eight million-dollar recoveries. As a leader among personal injury lawyers, Power has been listed in the Harvard Law graduates Naifeh and Smith book, The Best Lawyers in America, every year since 1987. The National Law Journal recognized him as one of the top ten litigators in the United States and he has been listed in Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Law.   Additionally, Power has been repeatedly selected as one of the top lawyers by LawDragon, a group which selects the top 500 lawyers in the country.  He has been named a top personal injury and consumer lawyer based upon polling of fellow lawyers in the Leading Lawyer Magazine since 2009 and is one of Super Lawyers Magazine's top ten lawyers in Illinois. He has consistently been named in Chicago Lawyer Magazine, including the “30 Tough Lawyers” where he was named one of the 30 toughest lawyers in all fields in Chicago.  Those listed are, according to the magazine, attorneys you want “for you, not against you.”   Power is involved in many professional organizations.  He is currently the immediate Past-President of the Inner Circle of Advocates which is an organization consisting of the top 100 Plaintiff Trial Lawyers in the country, and Past President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, Public Justice, Celtic Legal Society and ABOTA (Illinois Chapter).  He is a fellow with the International Academy of Trial Lawyers as well as the American College of Trial Lawyers.  He is also a member of the Irish Legal 100, the Chicago Bar Association, the Illinois State Bar Association and the American Bar Association.   Power was appointed to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee in 1993 and served as Chairman from 1995-2003 during which the committee promulgated the new discovery rules and mandatory voir dire.  Due to his professional expertise, Mr. Power has been honored in such publications as Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Law, Who's Who in the World and Who's Who of emerging Leaders in America. He has been recognized by several organizations for his work as a trial lawyer.  Power was awarded “Protector of the Working Man” by the Illinois State Crime Commission, “Citizen of the Year” by the City Club of Chicago and “Board Member of the Year” by the Little City Foundation.  Additionally, he was awarded the Civil Justice Foundation's Special Commendation Award for his thoroughness, tenacity and courage in uncovering and disclosing the “license for bribes” scandal. He received the Medal of Merit and Distinguished Award for Excellence from the Illinois State Bar Association and the Medal of Excellence by the Loyola University of Chicago School of Law.  He was awarded the Tribute for Leadership on behalf of social justice and progressive change by US Action and US Action Education Fund, as well as the prestigious  Leonard Ring Award  which is awarded to someone who has devoted, as Leonard Ring did, a substantial part of their life and their practice to the Illinois Trial Lawyers, someone who has done more than is called for, and to someone who has the standards, work ethic and commitment to the Illinois Trial Lawyers that Leonard had. Most recently, Joe Power was awarded the Justice John Paul Stevens award which is presented annually by the Chicago Bar Foundation and Chicago Bar Association to attorneys who best exemplify the Justice's commitment to integrity and public service in the practice of law.   Active in many charitable organizations, Power, his wife Susan and/or the Power Family Foundation regularly contribute to Leo High School, the University of Notre Dame, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, the Greater Chicago Food Depository, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Misericordia, Catholic Charities, Mercy Home for Boys and Girls, Free Spirit Media, Big Shoulders, the Chicago Police Memorial Foundation, St. Gabriel's Grammar School, St. Clement Church and DePaul University. Power is married to Susan Power and they have four sons and three grandchildren.  He and his wife live in Chicago. Read Full Bio   Larry Rogers Jr. Larry R. Rogers, Jr. is a trial lawyer with over 25 years of experience advocating for victims.  As a trial attorney and partner at Power Rogers, LLP, Mr. Rogers, Jr. has successfully settled and tried to verdict many multi-million dollar results for his clients in medical negligence, trucking, product liability and civil rights litigation.   He is a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates an invitation-only group of trial lawyers from across the country invited and admitted based upon their results and commitment to representing victims.    Mr. Rogers Jr. was recognized by Crain's Chicago Business as one of the top personal injury lawyers of a new generation of trial attorneys.    Mr. Rogers, Jr. has been involved in a number of significant high-profile matters, including the investigation of what happened to Sandra Bland a Chicagoland resident who was found dead in a Texas jail cell after an unlawful traffic stop.  He represents families in several civil rights and police brutality cases including the tragic shooting of Bettie Ruth Jones on the west side of Chicago which he recently resolved for a record 16 million dollars.  He has been a frequent guest on local and national radio and television shows to discuss events affecting the citizens of Chicago and the country. Mr. Rogers, Jr. and the attorneys at Power Rogers have represented victims against some of the most powerful interests in the country and have been ranked at the top of their field, with 11 consecutive 1st place rankings from 2010 to 2020in the Chicago Lawyer Annual Settlement Survey which ranks firms based on their results. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Deanne Maynard, co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s appellate and Supreme Court practice, has argued 14 cases before the Supreme Court since her first oral argument in 2004. On this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe interviews Maynard on how she prepares to argue before the justices, how she pivots away from hostile questions, and why hypotheticals can be the toughest questions of all. Howe also takes Maynard back to her first oral argument — accompanied by live audio — and what went through her mind when Justice John Paul Stevens asked Maynard a question before she even made it up to the lectern. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week JFK sits down with David Pozen of Columbia Law about his book Troubling Transparency: The History and Future of Freedom of Information. He teaches and writes about constitutional law and information law, among other topics. For the 2017-2018 academic year, Pozen was the inaugural visiting scholar at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. From 2010 to 2012, Pozen served as special advisor to Harold Hongju Koh at the Department of State. Previously, Pozen was a law clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Merrick B. Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and a special assistant to Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pozen's scholarship has been discussed in the New Yorker, New York Times, Washington Post, Harper's, Politico, Salon, Slate, Time, American Scholar, and numerous other publications. In 2019, the American Law Institute named Pozen the recipient of its Early Career Scholars Medal, which is awarded every other year to "one or two outstanding early-career law professors whose work is relevant to public policy and has the potential to influence improvements in the law."

"Law students are too risk-averse. There's too much planning and too little jumping in. You should experiment." That's U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in conversation with Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky on Monday, Sept. 23 in Zellerbach Hall."I think sometimes people look at my resume like mine, and they think, 'Oh, it's just like this golden life.' What you're seeing are the jobs I got. What you're not seeing are all the jobs I didn't get ... when a door closes, a window opens. Sometimes the things that you think you wanted, it turns out that you're better off not getting them."Kagan began her career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as Associate White House Counsel and later as policy adviser under President Bill Clinton. She then became a professor at Harvard Law School, and in 2003 was named its dean, its first woman dean. In 2009, she became Solicitor General of the United States, the officer responsible for representing the federal government before the Supreme Court. And in 2010, President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court itself to fill the vacancy arising from the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.During the conversation, Kagan discussed the mutual respect among justices and their shared passion for the law."I find it perplexing that you can’t like someone you disagree with, even on important matters,” she added. “I was extremely close to Justice Scalia, and spent the past few days writing a foreword for a book of his opinions. I like all my colleagues and feel close to many of them. There’s more to people than what they think about issues.”Read a transcript on Berkeley News. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Sonja West of the University of Georgia School of Law and Professor Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School, both former clerks to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. They discuss his life, legacy, and the lessons they learned from the late justice. donorschoose.org/AMICUS Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Follow Slate’s Amicus on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/amicuspodcast/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Sonja West of the University of Georgia School of Law and Professor Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School, both former clerks to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. They discuss his life, legacy, and the lessons they learned from the late justice. donorschoose.org/AMICUS Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Follow Slate’s Amicus on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/amicuspodcast/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Remembering Eva Kor, Justice John Paul StevensEva Kor was a Romanian Jew, who along with her twin sister Miriam, survived the Holocaust. As twins, she and her sister were subject to medical experiments by the notorious Auschwitz camp doctor, Josef Mengele. She surprised the world when she forgave several of the Nazi officers responsible for the Holocaust (but not Mengele).Justice John Paul Stevens, a native of Chicago, was an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for 35 years from 1975-2010. Appointed by President Ford, he was the third longest justice in Supreme Court history

This week's episode discusses the recent passing of former Justice John Paul Stevens before turning to American Humanist Society v. American Legion, which covers whether or not a 100 year old cross violates the Establishment Clause.  Law starts at (07:30) and there's a humdinger of a Thomas dissent towards the end.

We discuss the moon landing, the 50th anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's death at Chappaquiddick, the death of Justice John Paul Stevens and give a preliminary rundown of Boris Johnson's takeover as UK Prime Minister and Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress. Audio of President Kennedy, Sept. 12, 1962, Rice Stadium, courtesy of the JFK Presidential Library online, https://www.jfklibrary.org/node/345581; see also "'Kennedy Passenger Dies in Car Plunge': How Chappaquidick was Covered by the Washington Post," The Washington Post, July 18, 1969 & July 18, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/18/kennedy-passenger-dies-car-plunge-how-chappaquiddick-was-covered-by-washington-post/

In the second summer episode, Leah, Melissa and Jaime keep things light with a discussion of the Court's death penalty docket, the Armed Career Criminal Act cases from this past term, and Justice Kavanaugh's opinion in Flowers v. Mississippi. Kate also joins them to reflect on her time clerking for Justice John Paul Stevens. Last episode was our testing pancake, and this one is B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard Epstein looks back on the career of the late Justice John Paul Stevens, reviewing some of his most consequential judicial decisions.

The value of a talking doctor, Trump impeachment votes, and the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens.

Justice John Paul Stevens—one of the nation’s oldest, longest-serving, and most-revered justices—passed away at the age of 99 on Tuesday. On this episode, we remember the man, the justice, and some of his most influential majority opinions and dissents. Two of Justice Stevens' former law clerks, Daniel Farber of Berkeley Law and Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law, share some favorite memories from their clerkships and commemorate Justice Stevens’ life and legacy in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Justice John Paul Stevens—one of the nation’s oldest, longest-serving, and most-revered justices—passed away at the age of 99 on Tuesday. On this episode, we remember the man, the justice, and some of his most influential majority opinions and dissents. Two of Justice Stevens' former law clerks, Daniel Farber of Berkeley Law and Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law, share some favorite memories from their clerkships and commemorate Justice Stevens’ life and legacy in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Welcome back to #theUSApodcast here on The Young Angels Network In this episode mike digs into the theory behind why The GOP decides to remain silent when prominent members of their party do absolutely immoral acts such as blasting racist tweets and cheating in elections? Some members of The GOP find these acts disgusting while others always turn a blind eye or simply make an excuse for the action. Is it that they fear the majority of the population is becoming more progressive? Also tonight we talk about all the racism that is being thrown around these days. After Donald Trump sent off a series of really insensitive tweets about race and ethnicity, blaming it on lack of patriotism, the discussion of race is now back in the mainstream. Is the race card being overplayed too much and is it hurting the Dems for 2020?Also in economics we discuss what the CBO report for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour says. Is it a bad or a good thing?Plus we talk Black Lives Matter with Eric Gardner and the life of Justice John Paul Stevens. Please subscribe and share with the loved ones!!!

House Passes Resolution Condemning President's Racist Tweets; Four Republicans Voted For House Resolution Condemning President's Racists Tweets; House Resolution: President's "Racist Comments Have Legitimized Fear & Hatred Of New Americans & People Of Color"; House Voted 240-187 To Pass Resolution Condemning President's Racists Tweets; Four Republicans Vote "Yea" In House Vote To Condemn President's Racists Tweets; Every Democrat Voted For House Resolution Condemning President's Racists Tweets; President Trump's Racist Fight Against Four Lawmakers; President Trump: "I Don't Have A Racist Bone In My Body!"; Billionaire, Democratic Candidate For President Tom Steyer On President Trump's Racist Remarks; Steyer On The President's Tweets; Steyer: "Donald Trump Is A Failed Businessman"; Steyer On How To Win In 2020; Steyer: 2020 Election Can't Be About Pres. Trump; Steyer: "We Have A Broken Government"; Steyer: 2020 Will Be A Generational Change Election; Steyer: What America Needs Is An Outsider; Steyer: I Will Support The Dem. Nominee Whoever It Is; Steyer: "I Think We Are In An Emergency"; Steyer: "I Am A Democrat And I Will Support The Democrats"; Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Dies; Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Dies At Age 99 From Complications From Stroke; Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Dies At Hospital In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens "Passed Away Peacefully With His Daughters By His Side"

Justice John Paul Stevens’s majority opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) has become among the most hotly debated topics in legal circles. The “Chevron Doctrine,” which says that courts should defer to the interpretations of executive agencies on ambiguous statutes, divides scholars across ideological lines. Chevron’s growth from a “puny little precedent” into a landmark decision makes for an intriguing discussion about administrative agencies, judicial deference, and unintended consequences. What actually happened in Chevron v. NRDC? How much should courts defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of statutes? Is Chevron the ultimate legal example of “be careful what you wish for”? Administrative law experts discuss these topics and more in Chevron: Accidental Landmark, a documentary short from FedSoc Films. Join us for a screening of the film and a panel discussion about the past, present, and future of the Chevron Doctrine.

Justice John Paul Stevens’s majority opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) has become among the most hotly debated topics in legal circles. The “Chevron Doctrine,” which says that courts should defer to the interpretations of executive agencies on ambiguous statutes, divides scholars across ideological lines. Chevron’s growth from a “puny little precedent” into a landmark decision makes for an intriguing discussion about administrative agencies, judicial deference, and unintended consequences. What actually happened in Chevron v. NRDC? How much should courts defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of statutes? Is Chevron the ultimate legal example of “be careful what you wish for”? Administrative law experts discuss these topics and more in Chevron: Accidental Landmark, a documentary short from FedSoc Films. Join us for a screening of the film and a panel discussion about the past, present, and future of the Chevron Doctrine. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of The Open Mind, we welcome Columbia law professor and inaugural Knight Institute Fellow David Pozen. David teaches and writes about constitutional law, national security law, and information law, among other topics.The future of American law and morality, the jurisprudence that will define America is our topic today. The High Court is reaching a potential crossroads, return to an aspirational consensus or deepen a polarizing divide. Can the court veer from a partisan legitimacy crisis to neutral constitutional arbiter? We invite David Pozen to consider this question, the bruising nomination battle confirming Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and if and how the Court can salvage democracy. For the 2017-2018 academic year, Pozen is the inaugural visiting scholar at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. From 2010 to 2012, Pozen served as special advisor to Harold Hongju Koh at the Department of State. Previously, Pozen was a law clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Merrick B. Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and a special assistant to Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

President Trump and other politicians have painted the media as the “enemy of the people” -- purveyors of fake news who use their platform as a means to defame others. But really, what are the legal requirements of the media when reporting news? In this episode of Planet Lex, host Jim Speta talks to Northwestern Law alumnae Kate Shaw and Megan Murphy about their experience as lawyers in the media. They discuss the many legal issues facing journalists and pundits, and whether more law is needed to manage these matters. They also give tips on how to cultivate an ideologically diverse media diet and discuss the impact of social media on news. Megan Murphy is an award-winning journalist and commentator whose 20-year career has spanned multiple countries and events, from the 2016 presidential campaign to the global financial crisis. She most recently served as editor-in-chief of Bloomberg Businessweek. Before starting her career in journalism, Murphy was securities lawyer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto, CA. She currently lives in London. Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School and the Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Before joining Cardozo, she worked in the White House Counsel’s Office for the the Obama Administration. She clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Kate is a legal and Supreme Court analyst for ABC News.

Andrew Schulz is a New York City-based standup comedian who has appeared in such hit TV programs as Sneaky Pete and Crashing. His podcast is titled, "The Brilliant Idiots." Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law and the Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Before joining Cardozo, Professor Shaw worked in the White House Counsel's Office as a Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel to the President. She clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Andrew Friedman is a writer and chronicler of New York City's restaurant industry. He has authored multiple cookbooks and nonfiction books, and hosts a podcast titled, "Andrew Talks to Chefs." He is also the author of a new book titled, "Chefs, Drugs, and Rock & Roll: How Food Lovers, Free Spirits, Misfits, and Wanderers Created a New American Profession." He was quoted recently in the New York Times article, "Louis CK Performs Again, But Club Gives Patrons an Out."

Andrew Schulz is a New York City-based standup comedian who has appeared in such hit TV programs as Sneaky Pete and Crashing. His podcast is titled, "The Brilliant Idiots." Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law and the Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Before joining Cardozo, Professor Shaw worked in the White House Counsel's Office as a Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel to the President. She clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Andrew Friedman is a writer and chronicler of New York City's restaurant industry. He has authored multiple cookbooks and nonfiction books, and hosts a podcast titled, "Andrew Talks to Chefs." He is also the author of a new book titled, "Chefs, Drugs, and Rock & Roll: How Food Lovers, Free Spirits, Misfits, and Wanderers Created a New American Profession." He was quoted recently in the New York Times article, "Louis CK Performs Again, But Club Gives Patrons an Out."

After his recent meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin and comments about Russian interference in the 2016 elections, President Donald Trump has sparked a new controversy relating to the constitutional definition of treason, and to what extent actions taken in support of a foreign nation might constitute treason. Jeffrey Rosen leads a discussion about  the Treason Clause of the Constitution, what it means, and how it has been interpreted.  Paul Crane is an assistant professor of law at the University of Richmond Law School. Previously, he served as a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. He has also worked as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, as a Bristow Fellow for the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States, and clerked for Chief Justice Roberts on the U.S. Supreme Court. Deborah Pearlstein is a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. Previously, she served in the White House from 1993 to 1995 as a Senior Editor and Speechwriter for President Clinton, and served as the founding director of the Law and Security Program at Human Rights First, where she worked on military commission trials at Gitmo. Pearlstein also clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Interview discusses: What investors should look for when analyzing a turnaround situation.His views on Amazon and what physical retailers must do to effectively compete against the online giant. Which publicly-traded retailer (besides Home Depot) he admires. Where he believes we are in the U.S. housing cycle. His surprising thoughts on Wall Street analysts.A lesson he learned from President George Bush. And more...Biography:Frank was a Supreme Court clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. He later served as deputy counsel to Vice President George Bush. Later on he became Senior Vice President of Corporate Business Development at General Electric where he reported directly to Jack Welch. Frank left GE to become deputy secretary of the U.S. department of Energy. In 2002, Home Depot recruited Blake to lead its business development and corporate operations and eventually became its CEO in 2007. He is currently on the boards of Procter & Gamble and Macy's. He also serves as non-executive Chairman of Delta Air Lines.

Today we discuss the difficulties in solving problems we fail to acknowledge, as well as Justice John Paul Stevens suggestion that the Second Amendment be repealed. Tune in!

Liberals' view of consensual adultery was very different in 1998. We prove it. Also, Justice John Paul Stevens, now 97, says we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. He cites former Chief Justice Warren Burger on the 2nd Amendment. Scott cites Scalia on the 2nd Amendment. Check mate, Scalia.

“It is an invidious, undemocratic, and unconstitutional practice,” Justice John Paul Stevens said of gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Politicians have been manipulating district lines to favor one party over another since the founding of our nation. But with a case starting today, Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court may be in a position to crack this historical nut once and for all. Up until this point, the court didn’t have a standard measure or test for how much one side had unfairly drawn district lines. But “the efficiency gap” could be it. The mathematical formula measures how many votes Democrats and Republicans waste in elections — if either side is way outside the norm, there may be some foul play at hand. According to Loyola law professor Justin Levitt, both the case and the formula arrive at a critical time: “After the census in 2020, all sorts of different bodies will redraw all sorts of different lines and this case will help decide how and where.” The key voices: Moon Duchin, Associate Professor at Tufts University Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles The key cases: 2004: Vieth v. Jubelirer 2017: Gill v. Whitford The key links: “A Formula Goes to Court” by Mira Bernstein and Moon Duchin “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee  Special thanks to David Herman. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

Conversation with U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens The latest ABI Podcast features a conversation with U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, recorded at the ABI Southwest Bankruptcy Conference on Sept. 5. Justice Stephens is the longest-serving current member of the Court, appointed by President Ford in 1975.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens died on Tuesday. He was 99-years-old. In this program from 2014, Mr. Stevens talks about his book, [Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution]. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The real first episode of Oral Argument doesn’t hold back. Prof. Sonja West joins us to talk about the the press, the First Amendment, and other cool things. We discuss Supreme Court justices’ getting to talk about whatever they want, the Press Clause, the religion clauses (and even the quartering clause), Judith Miller and the Iraq War, peyote, bathrobed bloggers, the Twitter, who the press might be, Sonja’s press test, press access to prisons, why Joe should got to prison, religious and secular orthodoxy, bong hits for Jesus, student newspapers and local versions of the controversies over the Washington football team, and Christian’s “profoundly stupid” proposal. This show’s links: Sonja West’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uga.edu/profile/sonja-r-west), writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=518870), and Twitter stream (https://twitter.com/sonjarwest/) Sonja West, Press Exceptionalism (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2228813), 127 Harv. L. Rev (forthcoming 2014) Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalism and History (http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/JPS%20Speech(Georgia)_11-06-2013.pdf), text of address at University of Georgia, Nov. 6, 2013 New York Times v. Sullivan (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10183527771703896207) Branzburg v. Hayes (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11598860258825518787) (the Supreme Court on the reporters’ privilege) In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6530900504914793267) Employment Division v. Smith (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10098593029363815472) (the peyote case) Houchins v. KQED (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17191976500273269128) (the Supreme Court on press access to prisons) Neshaminy student newspaper to resume ‘redskin’ ban (http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-25/news/45541924_1_playwickian-student-editors-student-newspaper), Philly.com Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2391207692241045857) Morse v. Frederick (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10117776825257150184) (the BONG HiTS 4 JESUS case) Special Guest: Sonja West.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens discusses his long career on the bench and his views of American jurisprudence with Harvard Law professor (and former law clerk) David Barron.

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens spoke with Yale Law School lecturer and Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence Linda Greenhouse at Yale Law School on April 24, 2012. The conversation focused on Justice Stevens’ jurisprudence and experiences on the Court, as well as his recent memoir, Five Chiefs.

The Friends of the Law Library of Congress presented the 2011 Wickersham Award for exceptional public service and dedication to the legal profession to former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. Following the award presentation, Justice Stevens was interviewed by Gwen Ifill, moderator and managing editor of "Washington Week" and senior correspondent for "PBS NewsHour." Speaker Biography: Nominated by President Gerald Ford to replace the Court's longest-serving justice, William O. Douglas, Justice John Paul Stevens served from Dec. 19, 1975, until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, Stevens was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest-serving justice in the Court's history. For captions, transcript, or more information visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=5256.