Podcast appearances and mentions of justice thurgood marshall

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we unpack two significant legal developments. First, Jessica covers the Supreme Court's expedited review of the TikTok ban, weighing national security concerns against First Amendment rights. Then, she dives into the controversy surrounding a federal judge who criticized Justice Alito over flags flown at his residences, examining the broader implications for judicial impartiality and trust. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ ByteDance's Argument: ByteDance argues that restricting its platform violates users' First Amendment rights and contends that national security concerns are either exaggerated or unfounded.2️⃣ Potential Actions by President Trump Regarding TikTok case: President Trump could instruct the Attorney General not to enforce the law, attempt to persuade Congress to repeal it despite bipartisan support, argue that the law no longer applies if a qualified divestiture occurs, or advocate for the sale of TikTok to an American company.3️⃣ Judiciary Impartiality and Trust Issues: Judicial impartiality is crucial for maintaining public trust, and any erosion of respect for the judiciary could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis, as emphasized by quotes from Justice Thurgood Marshall underscoring the importance of civic duty.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Hometown Radio 06/19/24 3p: Dr. James Armstead discusses the legacy of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall

When most of us think about bail, we focus on the financial burden it presents to the accused. This week's guest is Jeffrey J. Clayton, Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition. He talks to Steve about the complicated anti-democratic trap that is our criminal justice system.Jeff explains that across the US there are plans in place to eliminate bail. (One would think that's good news. One would be wrong.) In reality, these plans result in greater violations of civil liberties. Bail is being replaced by pre-trial incarceration and risk assessment tools using computer algorithms (AKA profiling?)In his dissent in United States v. Salerno, Justice Thurgood Marshall warned that we are quickly moving to a criminal justice system where "a person innocent of any crime may be jailed indefinitely." Marshall called the bail system a shortcut to conviction.Steve and Jeff discuss the most obvious ways to address crime – by providing jobs, housing, and education or training. Some caught up in the criminal justice system need recovery treatment. In the US, those healthcare services have become punitive. Jeff refers to them as the dragnet of the state.Steve speaks of addressing the material conditions that contribute to criminal behavior. He brings up the concept of a federal job guarantee and talks about resource allocation and macroeconomic justice.Jeffrey J. Clayton serves as the Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition (ABC). He holds a B.B.A. from Baylor University, an M.S. in Public Policy from the University of Rochester, N.Y., and a J.D. from the Sturm College of Law, University of Denver.@ambailcoalition on Twitter

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What do we know about the AI knowledge and views, especially about existential risk, of the new OpenAI board members?, published by Zvi on March 11, 2024 on LessWrong. They have announced three new board members in addition to Altman, but we seem to know almost nothing about their views or knowledge on any AI-related subjects? What if anything do we know? From OpenAI: We're announcing three new members to our Board of Directors as a first step towards our commitment to expansion: Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann, former CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Nicole Seligman, former EVP and General Counsel at Sony Corporation and Fidji Simo, CEO and Chair of Instacart. Additionally, Sam Altman, CEO, will rejoin the OpenAI Board of Directors. Sue, Nicole and Fidji have experience in leading global organizations and navigating complex regulatory environments, including backgrounds in technology, nonprofit and board governance. They will work closely with current board members Adam D'Angelo, Larry Summers and Bret Taylor as well as Sam and OpenAI's senior management. Bret Taylor, Chair of the OpenAI board, stated, "I am excited to welcome Sue, Nicole, and Fidji to the OpenAI Board of Directors. Their experience and leadership will enable the Board to oversee OpenAI's growth, and to ensure that we pursue OpenAI's mission of ensuring artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity." Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann is a non-profit leader and physician. Dr. Desmond-Hellmann currently serves on the Boards of Pfizer and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. She previously was a Director at Proctor and Gamble, Meta (Facebook), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research institute. She served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from 2014 to 2020. From 2009-2014 she was Professor and Chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the first woman to hold the position. She also previously served as President of Product Development at Genentech, where she played a leadership role in the development of the first gene-targeted cancer drugs. Nicole Seligman is a globally recognized corporate and civic leader and lawyer. She currently serves on three public company corporate boards - Paramount Global, MeiraGTx Holdings PLC, and Intuitive Machines, Inc. Seligman held several senior leadership positions at Sony entities, including EVP and General Counsel at Sony Corporation, where she oversaw functions including global legal and compliance matters. She also served as President of Sony Entertainment, Inc., and simultaneously served as President of Sony Corporation of America. Seligman also currently holds nonprofit leadership roles at the Schwarzman Animal Medical Center and The Doe Fund in New York City. Previously, Seligman was a partner in the litigation practice at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C., working on complex civil and criminal matters and counseling a wide range of clients, including President William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Clinton. She served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court of the United States. Fidji Simo is a consumer technology industry veteran, having spent more than 15 years leading the operations, strategy and product development for some of the world's leading businesses. She is the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of Instacart. She also serves as a member of the Board of Directors at Shopify. Prior to joining Instacart, Simo was Vice President and Head of the Facebook App. Over the last decade at Facebook, she oversaw the Facebook App, including News Feed, Stories, Groups, Video, Marketplace, Gaming, News, Dating, Ads and more. Simo founded the Metrodora Institute, a multidisciplinary medical clinic and research foundation dedicated to t...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What do we know about the AI knowledge and views, especially about existential risk, of the new OpenAI board members?, published by Zvi on March 11, 2024 on LessWrong. They have announced three new board members in addition to Altman, but we seem to know almost nothing about their views or knowledge on any AI-related subjects? What if anything do we know? From OpenAI: We're announcing three new members to our Board of Directors as a first step towards our commitment to expansion: Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann, former CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Nicole Seligman, former EVP and General Counsel at Sony Corporation and Fidji Simo, CEO and Chair of Instacart. Additionally, Sam Altman, CEO, will rejoin the OpenAI Board of Directors. Sue, Nicole and Fidji have experience in leading global organizations and navigating complex regulatory environments, including backgrounds in technology, nonprofit and board governance. They will work closely with current board members Adam D'Angelo, Larry Summers and Bret Taylor as well as Sam and OpenAI's senior management. Bret Taylor, Chair of the OpenAI board, stated, "I am excited to welcome Sue, Nicole, and Fidji to the OpenAI Board of Directors. Their experience and leadership will enable the Board to oversee OpenAI's growth, and to ensure that we pursue OpenAI's mission of ensuring artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity." Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann is a non-profit leader and physician. Dr. Desmond-Hellmann currently serves on the Boards of Pfizer and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. She previously was a Director at Proctor and Gamble, Meta (Facebook), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research institute. She served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from 2014 to 2020. From 2009-2014 she was Professor and Chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the first woman to hold the position. She also previously served as President of Product Development at Genentech, where she played a leadership role in the development of the first gene-targeted cancer drugs. Nicole Seligman is a globally recognized corporate and civic leader and lawyer. She currently serves on three public company corporate boards - Paramount Global, MeiraGTx Holdings PLC, and Intuitive Machines, Inc. Seligman held several senior leadership positions at Sony entities, including EVP and General Counsel at Sony Corporation, where she oversaw functions including global legal and compliance matters. She also served as President of Sony Entertainment, Inc., and simultaneously served as President of Sony Corporation of America. Seligman also currently holds nonprofit leadership roles at the Schwarzman Animal Medical Center and The Doe Fund in New York City. Previously, Seligman was a partner in the litigation practice at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C., working on complex civil and criminal matters and counseling a wide range of clients, including President William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Clinton. She served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court of the United States. Fidji Simo is a consumer technology industry veteran, having spent more than 15 years leading the operations, strategy and product development for some of the world's leading businesses. She is the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of Instacart. She also serves as a member of the Board of Directors at Shopify. Prior to joining Instacart, Simo was Vice President and Head of the Facebook App. Over the last decade at Facebook, she oversaw the Facebook App, including News Feed, Stories, Groups, Video, Marketplace, Gaming, News, Dating, Ads and more. Simo founded the Metrodora Institute, a multidisciplinary medical clinic and research foundation dedicated to t...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: OpenAI announces new members to board of directors, published by Will Howard on March 10, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. From the linked article: We're announcing three new members to our Board of Directors as a first step towards our commitment to expansion: Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann, former CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Nicole Seligman, former EVP and General Counsel at Sony Corporation and Fidji Simo, CEO and Chair of Instacart. Additionally, Sam Altman, CEO, will rejoin the OpenAI Board of Directors. ... Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann is a non-profit leader and physician. Dr. Desmond-Hellmann currently serves on the Boards of Pfizer and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. She previously was a Director at Proctor and Gamble, Meta (Facebook), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research institute. She served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from 2014 to 2020. From 2009-2014 she was Professor and Chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the first woman to hold the position. She also previously served as President of Product Development at Genentech, where she played a leadership role in the development of the first gene-targeted cancer drugs. ... Nicole Seligman is a globally recognized corporate and civic leader and lawyer. She currently serves on three public company corporate boards - Paramount Global, MeiraGTx Holdings PLC, and Intuitive Machines, Inc. Seligman held several senior leadership positions at Sony entities, including EVP and General Counsel at Sony Corporation, where she oversaw functions including global legal and compliance matters. She also served as President of Sony Entertainment, Inc., and simultaneously served as President of Sony Corporation of America. Seligman also currently holds nonprofit leadership roles at the Schwarzman Animal Medical Center and The Doe Fund in New York City. Previously, Seligman was a partner in the litigation practice at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C., working on complex civil and criminal matters and counseling a wide range of clients, including President William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Clinton. She served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Fidji Simo is a consumer technology industry veteran, having spent more than 15 years leading the operations, strategy and product development for some of the world's leading businesses. She is the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of Instacart. She also serves as a member of the Board of Directors at Shopify. Prior to joining Instacart, Simo was Vice President and Head of the Facebook App. Over the last decade at Facebook, she oversaw the Facebook App, including News Feed, Stories, Groups, Video, Marketplace, Gaming, News, Dating, Ads and more. Simo founded the Metrodora Institute, a multidisciplinary medical clinic and research foundation dedicated to the care and cure of neuroimmune axis disorders and serves as President of the Metrodora Foundation. It looks like none of them have a significant EA connection, although Sue Desmond-Hellmann has said some positive things about effective altruism at least. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote. In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis. While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy.

After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote. In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis. While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy.

After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote. In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis. While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy.

This Day in Legal History: Shoe Bomber SentencedOn this day, January 30th, in the year 2003, a significant event in the annals of legal and aviation history unfolded when Richard Reid, a British national, received a life sentence in the United States for an act of terrorism that gripped the world. Reid's infamous attempt to destroy an American passenger plane with a bomb concealed in his shoe marked a chilling moment in aviation security.It was on December 21, 2001, when Reid boarded a flight at Miami International Airport, destined for Paris, with a sinister plan. Hidden within his shoe was an explosive device, a fact unknown to fellow passengers and crew as the flight commenced. The calm of the flight was shattered when Reid made his move to ignite the explosive device. However, the narrative took a dramatic turn as alert passengers and crew members quickly intervened. Displaying remarkable courage and presence of mind, they restrained Reid, thwarting what could have been a catastrophic tragedy in mid-air. This act of collective bravery averted potential loss of life and highlighted the importance of vigilance in air travel.Reid's arrest and subsequent trial brought to light the ever-present threats in aviation and the need for stringent security measures. His conviction and life sentence, handed down on this day, served as a stark reminder of the ongoing battle against terrorism and the importance of international cooperation in ensuring the safety of air travel.Richard Reid's case not only transformed airport security protocols worldwide but also became a case study in counter-terrorism strategies. It underscored the reality that threats can come in the most unexpected forms and from seemingly ordinary individuals. Today, as we look back on this day in legal history, we are reminded of the thin line between normalcy and chaos in our interconnected world.Legal malpractice claims against law firms are on the rise, both in frequency and in financial magnitude. This trend is driven by a combination of factors, including large insurance policies held by law firms, client reluctance to pay fees, and the involvement of investors in litigation. As a result, law firms increasingly find themselves as defendants in costly lawsuits.Clients are suing their legal counsel for various alleged missteps, such as conflicts of interest and failure to file documents on time. This has led to a specialty emerging among attorneys in suing law firms. Bethany Kristovich, a litigation partner, observes a growing tendency for clients to view law firms as just another source of financial compensation.A 2023 report by Ames & Gough highlights the escalating scale of these claims, with seven out of ten insurers of top law firms paying claims over $50 million in recent years, and two exceeding $150 million. The most common areas for malpractice claims are trusts and estates, and business and commercial transactions.Law firms' perceived financial backing by substantial insurance policies makes them attractive targets for malpractice suits. Economic pressures further exacerbate this vulnerability, leading clients to dispute fees, especially during tough business conditions. High-profile cases, such as X Corp.'s (owned by Elon Musk) lawsuit against Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz over $90 million fees, illustrate this trend.Attorneys, once reluctant to sue fellow law firms, now pursue these cases more freely, as seen in the success of Reid Collins & Tsai in securing substantial settlements from such lawsuits. The firm's approach often involves a pre-suit process, maintaining discretion and good relations with insurance carriers and law firms.Kristovich predicts an increase in claims related to breaches of fiduciary duties and conflicts of interest. She notes a shift in the nature of allegations, with law firms now more likely to be sued for their association with a client's alleged crimes, rather than just their legal advice. This changing landscape suggests a more challenging environment for legal practices in managing their professional risks.Legal Malpractice Claims Grow in Size as Clients Turn on CounselJustice Sonia Sotomayor, during an appearance at the University of California, Berkeley's law school, expressed that she is feeling the strain of an increasingly demanding workload at the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009 and is the first Latina justice, mentioned the court's packed schedule, which includes significant cases on abortion, guns, social media, and a Trump ballot issue. She noted the growing number of emergency cases and briefs from outside groups as factors contributing to her exhaustion.Sotomayor remarked that the court's emergency calendar is now active almost weekly, a significant change from when the justices had a substantial summer break. In response to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's query about how to address student disillusionment with the Supreme Court and the Constitution, Sotomayor emphasized the importance of continuing to fight for justice. She referenced historical figures like Justice Thurgood Marshall, Rep. John Lewis, and civil rights activists, highlighting their sacrifices and the necessity of persevering against challenges.Sotomayor conveyed her own sense of obligation and commitment, despite the frustrations and emotional toll of her work. She stressed that change requires persistent effort and dedication, underscoring the importance of not yielding to despair in the pursuit of justice.Sotomayor Calls Supreme Court Pace, Workload More Demanding (1)Donald Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, has raised questions about a potential conflict of interest involving U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over E. Jean Carroll's recent defamation trial. Habba's skepticism stems from a New York Post article that highlighted an alleged prior working relationship between Judge Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in the early 1990s. This claim, based on an unnamed source, suggests that Roberta Kaplan sought to stand out as an associate and Judge Kaplan was "like her mentor."Habba finds this relationship "particularly concerning" and suggests it could be grounds for a new trial. She also accuses Judge Kaplan of being "overtly hostile" towards Trump's side and showing "preferential" treatment to Carroll's, which she believes might support her call for a retrial. Trump's team is planning to appeal the recent $83.3 million verdict against him, which was a result of his 2019 denial of raping Carroll in the 1990s.However, skepticism about these claims might be warranted given the lack of immediate response from Judge Kaplan's chambers, spokespeople for Carroll and Roberta Kaplan, and Paul Weiss. Furthermore, Habba's argument primarily relies on a single media report and an unnamed source, which might not provide the most reliable foundation for such serious allegations. The situation is complicated by the large amount of money involved in the verdict and the ongoing appeal of a previous $5 million award against Trump in a similar case, making the context of these allegations particularly charged.Trump lawyer says judge's possible conflict may taint $83 million Carroll verdict | ReutersIn my column on nonprofit hospitals and tax reform, I discuss the significant tax benefits these institutions receive while often contributing less than 1% of their revenue to charity care. This disparity between tax advantages and charitable contributions raises concerns about the societal benefits these hospitals provide. Given that nonprofit hospitals make up a considerable portion of the healthcare system and are known for high executive compensation, it's clear that policy reforms are needed to ensure these institutions fulfill their societal obligations.To address these issues, I propose enhanced financial transparency and real-time reporting. Nonprofit hospitals should be mandated to provide detailed financial data, including compensation for top executives and a breakdown of expenditures on administrative costs, marketing, and consulting fees. This level of transparency will help the public understand where tax expenditures are being allocated and whether they align with the hospitals' charitable mission.I argue that financial transparency should extend to capital projects, property investments, and outsourced service costs. Large-scale transparency is essential to reassess the relationship between tax expenditures and societal returns, especially considering the potential misallocation of funds.To aid in this endeavor, I suggest utilizing AI and other high-tech solutions. These technologies can manage large datasets and help in developing equitable benchmarks for charitable care. They can also assist in continuous financial monitoring, flagging anomalies in spending patterns.Regarding the tax status of nonprofit hospitals, they must meet specific requirements under Section 501(r) of the tax code. This includes conducting a community health needs assessment every three years and adopting financial assistance policies for patients in need. However, the standards governing expenditures on charity care are less stringent compared to those for patient financial assistance.Balancing accountability is crucial. Public awareness and demand are necessary to recalibrate the priorities of the nonprofit hospital sector. Funds allocated to public health should be viewed as investments, with misallocated resources representing both a loss of investment and an opportunity cost.In summary, my column emphasizes the need for policy reforms to ensure nonprofit hospitals align their tax benefits with societal expectations. Enhanced transparency, supported by technology, and stricter regulation are key to achieving this balance.Nonprofit Hospitals Need Novel Policy Solutions for Tax Reform Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Thurgood Marshall DiesOn January 24, 1993, the United States lost one of its most influential legal figures, retired Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His death in Bethesda, Maryland, marked the end of an era in American jurisprudence. Born on July 2, 1908, in Baltimore, Maryland, Marshall's journey to becoming the first African American Supreme Court Justice was paved with groundbreaking legal battles and an unwavering commitment to civil rights.Before his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, Marshall had already made a significant impact as a lawyer. He served as the chief counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), where he strategized and won a series of critical court cases that chipped away at the legal foundations of racial segregation. His most famous case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, ended with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision declaring state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional, effectively overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson.During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Marshall became known for his passionate advocacy for individual rights and his opposition to the death penalty. His legal opinions, both majority and dissenting, reflected his deep-seated belief in equality and justice for all. He often stressed the importance of viewing the Constitution as a dynamic, living document, capable of adapting to changing societal needs and values.Marshall's impact extends beyond his legal victories; he paved the way for greater diversity in the legal profession and on the bench. His life and career remain a testament to the power of the law as a tool for social change and continue to inspire generations of lawyers, activists, and citizens.His death was not just the loss of a great legal mind but also the end of an era that saw significant strides in civil rights and social justice. As we remember Justice Thurgood Marshall on this day, his legacy serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for equality and the enduring power of dedicated individuals to bring about change in society.Brown, Yale, and Columbia universities, along with Emory and Duke, have agreed to pay a total of $62 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of favoring wealthy applicants, bringing the total settlements in the case to $118 million. This lawsuit, filed against several U.S. universities, alleges they conspired to restrict financial aid and violated a pledge to not consider students' financial status in admissions, effectively giving an advantage to wealthy students. The universities, including those that have settled, deny any wrongdoing. The settlements vary, with Yale and Emory paying $18.5 million each, Brown $19.5 million, and Columbia and Duke $24 million each. The lawsuit, still involving 10 other universities like Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, is pending approval from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly, who previously declined to dismiss the case in 2022.Brown, Yale, Columbia among latest to settle financial-aid lawsuit | ReutersGoogle has settled a patent infringement lawsuit with Singular Computing, averting a trial that was set to begin with closing arguments. The lawsuit, filed in 2019, sought $1.67 billion in damages, accusing Google of misusing Singular's computer-processing innovations in its artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Singular, founded by Joseph Bates, alleged that Google incorporated its technology into processing units used in various Google services like Google Search, Gmail, and Google Translate.The dispute centered around Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), introduced in 2016 to enhance AI capabilities in tasks like speech recognition and ad recommendation. Singular claimed that the second and third versions of these units, released in 2017 and 2018, infringed on its patents. According to the lawsuit, Bates shared his inventions with Google between 2010 and 2014, suggesting that Google's TPUs copied his technology.Internal emails revealed during the trial indicated Google's interest in Bates' ideas, with the company's now-chief scientist, Jeff Dean, acknowledging their potential utility. However, Google maintained that its employees who designed the TPUs had never met Bates and developed the technology independently, arguing that its tech was fundamentally different from what was described in Singular's patents.Details of the settlement have not been disclosed, and representatives from both Google and Singular have confirmed the settlement without providing further information. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda expressed satisfaction with the resolution, emphasizing that Google did not violate Singular's patent rights.Google settles AI-related chip patent lawsuit that sought $1.67 bln | ReutersGoogle Settles AI Chip-Design Suit That Had Sought BillionsSpellbook, a Canada-based legal software company specializing in contract management, has secured $20 million in Series A funding, led by Montreal's Inovia Capital. Other investors include The Legaltech Fund, Bling Capital, and Thomson Reuters Ventures. The company's product, built on OpenAI's GPT-4, assists corporate and commercial lawyers with contract drafting and review by suggesting language and negotiation points.The legal AI sector is experiencing a surge in investment as startups introduce tools designed to integrate generative AI into legal processes. However, the market remains highly competitive with no clear leader yet emerging. Spellbook's CEO, Scott Stevenson, highlighted the company's focus on serving small to midsize law firms and solo practitioners, though it has also attracted larger firms and in-house legal teams.Spellbook's clientele includes diverse organizations such as Addleshaw Goddard, KMSC Law, Carbon Chemistry, and ATEM Capital. The company, initially named Rally at its inception in 2019, rebranded to Spellbook after a $10.9 million seed round in June 2023 and shifted focus from automating routine legal tasks to AI-driven contract management.The legal technology sector is witnessing increased investor interest, particularly since the advent of generative AI technologies. Other firms in the sector, such as Norm AI and Robin AI, have also recently raised substantial funding, indicating a growing trend in the investment and development of legal AI tools.Legal AI startup Spellbook raises $20 mln as sector draws more investments | ReutersThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has introduced new rules for deals involving special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), aiming to enhance investor protections and align these transactions more closely with traditional initial public offerings (IPOs). This regulatory change comes as SPACs, which surged in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic as an alternative public listing method, have recently lost favor. The new rules revoke certain legal protections previously afforded to SPAC sponsors, making them more susceptible to lawsuits over exaggerated statements. These regulations also demand increased disclosures, particularly concerning forward-looking projections in the later stages of SPAC deals.By way of very brief background, a SPAC is an alternative to the traditional IPO process for a company seeking to go public. A SPAC is essentially a shell company that raises funds through an IPO with the sole intent of acquiring or merging with an existing private company, thereby taking that company public. Unlike traditional IPOs, where a company goes public based on its own assets and operations, a SPAC has no commercial operations and is created solely for the purpose of acquiring a private company. This process allows the target company to become publicly traded more quickly and with potentially less regulatory scrutiny than the traditional IPO route. Additionally, SPACs offer more certainty regarding valuation and financing compared to traditional IPOs.SEC Chair Gary Gensler emphasized the need for robust investor protections, regardless of the method used for going public. The SEC's heightened scrutiny and macroeconomic factors like rising interest rates have already cooled the once-booming SPAC market. Major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and Bank of America reduced their involvement in SPACs following the SEC's initial proposal of these changes.The SEC's new requirements include detailed disclosures from SPAC sponsors about potential conflicts of interest, compensation, and dilution. Companies targeted by SPACs must now register with the SEC and fulfill additional disclosure obligations before merging. Furthermore, these target companies are now jointly liable for the information shared with investors and must provide independently audited financial statements. The SEC's Republican Commissioner Mark Uyeda criticized the rules as overly burdensome, suggesting they might effectively end the SPAC market. The new regulations will take effect in over four months, with additional financial reporting and accounting requirements for SPAC transactions also being implemented.SEC Imposes New Rules on Blank-Check Deals as SPACs Fizzle (2) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This series is sponsored by Mira and Daniel Stokar, and this episode is sponsored by our friends at Shikey Press, a boutique publisher of Jewish content disrupting the traditional model of book publishing.In this episode of the 18Forty Podcast, we talk to Martha Minow, a legal scholar and a professor at Harvard Law School, about forgiveness, law, and the boundaries of teshuva.In a world of ubiquitous transgression, our desire for justice and healing feels perpetually unsatisfied. Why is reconciliation seemingly so hard to get right? In this episode we discuss:How is doing teshuva different from confessing in court?What is the role of reparations in reconciliation?Why is forgiveness such an important part of human culture?Tune in to hear a conversation about why teshuva transcends our systems of justice.Interview begins at 17:13.Martha Minow is a legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, where she has taught since 1981. Martha serves as the 12th dean of Harvard Law School, was a candidate mentioned to replace Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens upon his retirement, and has served as chair of the MacArthur Foundation. Martha clerked for Judge David Bazelon of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States, and is the author of many articles and books on matters of civil procedure, constitutional law, and human and religious rights. References:“Warren Studies Talmudic Law Here”The Rabbi As Symbolic Exemplar by Jack H. BloomMakkot 13bWhen Should Law Forgive? by Martha MinowNetivot Olam, Netiv Hatshuva 2 Resisei Layla 3 Takanat HaShavin 8 The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness by Simon WiesenthalOn Apology by Aaron Lazare Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation by Nicholas Tavuchis

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2“Independent voters will look at some of these charges and say, gee, where there's smoke, there's fire. But of course, where there's smoke, sometimes there's arson,” says Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus of law at Harvard Law School.“I think a lot of these fires have been set politically in order to get Trump,” Dershowitz says. He's the author of the new book, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law.”We discuss the many cases being litigated against former President Donald Trump, what his vulnerabilities actually are, and the broader assault on civil liberties.“Justice Thurgood Marshall said the First Amendment has two sides: one, the right to speak, and two, the right to listen and the right to hear. And the right to hear is just as important as the right to speak. And so people who have been denied the right to hear have the power to bring lawsuits,” Dershowitz says.

Reverend Dr. Al Hathaway, Sr., CEO of the Beloved Community Services Corporation, discusses a Medicare Advantage fix to address health equity for seniors. Then Hathaway delves into his historic work to renovate Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's Baltimore Elementary School P.S. 103.“Justice Thurgood Marshall should be to Baltimore what the Rev. Martin Luther King is to Atlanta,” explains Hathaway. The Reverend Doctor also explains how he started started the African Ancestry Neuroscience Research Initiative (AANRI), a partnership between community leaders, Morgan State University, and the Lieber Institute for Brain Development. Hathaway talks about Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test progress, the Maryland federal delegation, and his podcast "He's Holy, I'm Knott."

Manuelita Brown, is a former teacher of mathematics and currently a professional artist and sculptor who lives in a small beach town in San Diego, CA. Manuelita specializes in bronze figurative and portrait sculpture and has completed private, corporate and public commissions that live in museums, on college campuses and public arenas throughout the United States. Her work is expansive and includes, but not limited to, eight life-sized dolphins called Alamas del Mar, a bust of Matthew A. Henson, Triton, an 8-foot rendering of the “messenger of the sea”, a bust of Justice Thurgood Marshall, and one of our favorites, a life size statue of Sojourner Truth. Manuelita is endowed with an exceptional understanding of universal human experiences. In Sojourner Truth, Manuelita demonstrates her preference for life-sized   monumental sculptures of remarkable people, to effectively help viewers relate to the humanity of that individual. Her primary goals are to contribute sculpture works to the American public which edify and give expression to the human spirit, and to convey the strength, character, and beauty of her own people, the descendants of African survivors in the Americas.Trained by veteran sculptors, including Bruno Lucchesi, Nigel Konstam, and Simon Kogan, Manuelita has been honored with numerous awards accompanying her participation in juried shows and exhibitions throughout the country. Manuelia is also a wife, mother, and grandmother and is 81 years old.  https://www.instagram.com/workwhileyouhavethelight/

  Join Michael in his conversation with Nina Totenberg about her new memoir, Dinners with Ruth: A Memoir on the Power of Friendships, which describes her nearly fifty-year relationship with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. It also traces her trail-blazing career in journalism including the obstacles she faced, the “Old Girls Network” of friends she made, and the importance of meaningful friendships in all of our lives. Guest Nina Totenberg Nina Totenberg is NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent. Her reports air regularly on NPR's critically acclaimed newsmagazines All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend Edition. Totenberg's coverage of the Supreme Court and legal affairs has won her widespread recognition. She is often featured in documentaries — most recently RBG — that deal with issues before the court. As Newsweek put it, “The mainstays [of NPR] are Morning Edition and All Things Considered. But the creme de la creme is Nina Totenberg.” In 1991, her ground-breaking report about University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment by Judge Clarence Thomas led the Senate Judiciary Committee to re-open Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearings to consider Hill's charges. NPR received the prestigious George Foster Peabody Award for its gavel-to-gavel coverage — anchored by Totenberg — of both the original hearings and the inquiry into Anita Hill's allegations, and for Totenberg's reports and exclusive interview with Hill. That same coverage earned Totenberg additional awards, including the Long Island University George Polk Award for excellence in journalism; the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for investigative reporting; the Carr Van Anda Award from the Scripps School of Journalism; and the prestigious Joan S. Barone Award for excellence in Washington-based national affairs/public policy reporting, which also acknowledged her coverage of Justice Thurgood Marshall's retirement. Totenberg was named Broadcaster of the Year and honored with the 1998 Sol Taishoff Award for Excellence in Broadcasting from the National Press Foundation. She is the first radio journalist to receive the award. She is also the recipient of the American Judicature Society's first-ever award honoring a career body of work in the field of journalism and the law. In 1988, Totenberg won the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Silver Baton for her coverage of Supreme Court nominations. The jurors of the award stated, “Ms. Totenberg broke the story of Judge (Douglas) Ginsburg's use of marijuana, raising issues of changing social values and credibility with careful perspective under deadline pressure.” Totenberg has been honored seven times by the American Bar Association for continued excellence in legal reporting and has received more than two dozen honorary degrees. On a lighter note, Esquire magazine twice named her one of the “Women We Love.” A frequent contributor on TV shows, she has also written for major newspapers and periodicals — among them, The New York Times Magazine, The Harvard Law Review, The Christian Science Monitor, and New York Magazine, and others. Host Michael Zeldin Michael Zeldin is a well-known and highly-regarded TV and radio analyst/commentator. He has covered many high-profile matters, including the Clinton impeachment proceedings, the Gore v. Bush court challenges, Special Counsel Robert Muller's investigation of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the Trump impeachment proceedings. In 2019, Michael was a Resident Fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he taught a study group on Independent Investigations of Presidents. Previously, Michael was a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as Deputy Independent/ Independent Counsel, investigating allegations of tampering with presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport files, and as Deputy Chief Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee, October Surprise Task Force, investigating the handling of the American hostage situation in Iran. Michael is a prolific writer and has published Op-ed pieces for CNN.com, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Hill, The Washington Times, and The Washington Post. Follow Michael on Twitter: @michaelzeldin Subscribe to the Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/that-said-with-michael-zeldin/id1548483720

Civil rights icons like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Justice Thurgood Marshall have become household names. But the historic work of New Haven native Constance Baker Motley is still unknown to many Americans. This week, a look into the life and legacy of the first Black woman appointed to a federal court in American history.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joe Madison and his listeners join House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to call for the removal of symbols of hate from the United States Capitol and to honor Justice Thurgood Marshall instead.

Former Federal Prosecutor & Former President of the Black Women Lawyers of Greater Chicago, Kalia Coleman, a Partner with Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila Joins Host Richard Levick of LEVICK: Kalia Coleman, a litigator who transitioned to private practice after 10 years as a prosecutor, focusing on white-collar criminal defense, government investigations and compliance work at Chicago's Riley Safer, Holmes & Cancila joins host Richard Levick of LEVICK to discuss both her practice and the inspiration, since childhood of Justice Thurgood Marshall and the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which she first learned about in sixth grade. It was “the first time I understood the power of persuasion that a lawyer possesses.” She also discusses the significant influence of her partner, Judge Patricia Brown Holmes and the appointment and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have had on her life. A deeply moving and personal show which will help you appreciate the importance of the past 60 years in jurisprudence and its impact on real and remarkable people.

#OTD Thurgood Marshall was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Lyndon B. Johnson, making him the first African American justice to serve on the high court.

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was being “so wantonly and so freakishly imposed” that it was “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” But just four years later, the Court reversed course---ruling that with new procedures in place, states could continue executions without running afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote an impassioned dissent arguing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual under any circumstances. After hearing his experiences as a defense attorney in the South, it's easy to understand why.Thanks to our guests John Stinneford and Mark Tushnet.Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Civil rights icons like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Justice Thurgood Marshall have become household names. But the historic work of New Haven native Constance Baker Motley is still unknown to many Americans. This week, a look into the life and legacy of the first Black woman appointed to a federal court in American history. Guests: Connie Royster: retired New Haven attorney, former director of development at the Yale Divinity School, and niece of Constance Baker Motley Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Dean of theRadcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University and professor of Constitutional Law and History. She's also the author of the book Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality Disrupted is produced by James Szkobel-Wolff, Zshekinah Collier and Catie Talarski. Our interns are Michayla Savitt and Sara Gasparotto. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy 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.

Yesterday, April 7th, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, making her the first Black woman to serve as a justice on the nation's highest court. Building off the confirmation of Justice Brown Jackson, we took a Deep Dive into the life and legacy of Judge Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to serve on the federal judiciary. Constance Baker Motley was a civil rights lawyer, NY state politician, and the first Black woman appointed to the federal judiciary. Before finishing law school at Columbia University in 1945, Motley served as a law clerk in the office of Thurgood Marshall, the well known civil rights leader who was the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1946, Motley joined the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund where she served as a civil rights lawyer for nearly two decades. She represented well known civil rights leaders like MLK and Medgar Evans whose constitutional rights were often under siege by the American government during that time. She also represented those who took part in civil rights activism such as the Freedom Fighters and the Birmingham Children Marchers. She was considered a key legal and political strategist of the movement.  In 1950, Motley was the legal mind behind the original complaint in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark case that ended school segregation in the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The complaint in Brown v. BOE (1954) argued that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, racial separation under the guise of "separate but equal," was in-fact unequal therefore unconstitutional. This historical case set the legal stage for desegregation in the U.S. In 1964, Motley became the first Black woman elected to the NY State Senate, and she eventually became the first Black woman elected to serve as Borough President of Manhattan. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed her to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, making her the first Black woman to be appointed to the federal bench.  Today, we took a deep dive into her life and legacy with Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and Professor Law and History at Harvard University. She's author of Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality, “A must-read for anyone who dares to believe that equal justice under the law is possible and is in search of a model for how to make it a reality,” said Professor Anita Hill. Anita Hill is the legal scholar and professor who captivated the American public in 1991 during her testimony before the Senate judiciary committee in the vetting process for then-nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas is the only other African American to sit on the Supreme Court; he was appointed by George H. W. Bush to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. He's married to Virginia Thomas who sent a great deal of text messages begging former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to push to overturn the fairly drawn results of the 2020 presidential election. We also spoke with President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Janai Nelson, about the legacy Motley left and the pivotal cases she worked on during her time there.  Simone Yhap, the immediate past president of the National Chair of the National Black Law Students Association also joined us. Yhap spoke to us about the obstacles Black law students continue to face, citing a recent incident from law student Brooklyn Crockton. Crockton posted a TikTok back in March about what happened when she arrived at court to serve as a Rule 9 attorney representing an indigent client. She says a court officer blocked her entry into the courtroom and asked if she was the defendant on trial. Simone speaks to this incident with her own story of racial discrimination during law school and reflects on how the historical confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will inspire the next generation of U.S. attorneys. Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gestures as she speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, March 22, 2022 (Carolyn Kaster/AP)   

Yesterday, April 7th, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, making her the first Black woman to serve as a justice on the nation's highest court. Building off the confirmation of Justice Brown Jackson, we took a Deep Dive into the life and legacy of Judge Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to serve on the federal judiciary. Constance Baker Motley was a civil rights lawyer, NY state politician, and the first Black woman appointed to the federal judiciary. Before finishing law school at Columbia University in 1945, Motley served as a law clerk in the office of Thurgood Marshall, the well known civil rights leader who was the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1946, Motley joined the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund where she served as a civil rights lawyer for nearly two decades. She represented well known civil rights leaders like MLK and Medgar Evans whose constitutional rights were often under siege by the American government during that time. She also represented those who took part in civil rights activism such as the Freedom Fighters and the Birmingham Children Marchers. She was considered a key legal and political strategist of the movement.  In 1950, Motley was the legal mind behind the original complaint in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark case that ended school segregation in the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The complaint in Brown v. BOE (1954) argued that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, racial separation under the guise of "separate but equal," was in-fact unequal therefore unconstitutional. This historical case set the legal stage for desegregation in the U.S. In 1964, Motley became the first Black woman elected to the NY State Senate, and she eventually became the first Black woman elected to serve as Borough President of Manhattan. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed her to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, making her the first Black woman to be appointed to the federal bench.  Today, we took a deep dive into her life and legacy with Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and Professor Law and History at Harvard University. She's author of Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality, “A must-read for anyone who dares to believe that equal justice under the law is possible and is in search of a model for how to make it a reality,” said Professor Anita Hill. Anita Hill is the legal scholar and professor who captivated the American public in 1991 during her testimony before the Senate judiciary committee in the vetting process for then-nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas is the only other African American to sit on the Supreme Court; he was appointed by George H. W. Bush to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. He's married to Virginia Thomas who sent a great deal of text messages begging former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to push to overturn the fairly drawn results of the 2020 presidential election. We also spoke with President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Janai Nelson, about the legacy Motley left and the pivotal cases she worked on during her time there.  Simone Yhap, the immediate past president of the National Chair of the National Black Law Students Association also joined us. Yhap spoke to us about the obstacles Black law students continue to face, citing a recent incident from law student Brooklyn Crockton. Crockton posted a TikTok back in March about what happened when she arrived at court to serve as a Rule 9 attorney representing an indigent client. She says a court officer blocked her entry into the courtroom and asked if she was the defendant on trial. Simone speaks to this incident with her own story of racial discrimination during law school and reflects on how the historical confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will inspire the next generation of U.S. attorneys. Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gestures as she speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, March 22, 2022 (Carolyn Kaster/AP)   

In Season 3, Episode 1 of Notorious, we discuss Justice Thurgood Marshall's and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement, and parallels and differences between their legal and judicial strategies. Guests will include Judge Joseph A. Greenway Jr., who currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and previously sat on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Of Counsel and former judicial clerk to Justice Marshall; Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle M. Bufano; and Patterson Belknap Associate Mariana Múnera-Keating. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Gregory L. Diskant Mariana Múnera-Keating

CHUCK SCHUMER ERASES FIRST BLACK SUPREME COURT JUSTICEhttps://gorightnews.com/chuck-schumer-erases-first-black-supreme-court-justice/https://www.spreaker.com/user/9922149/chuck-schumer-erases-first-black-supremeCryin' Chuck Schumer erased the first black Supreme Court Justice, as he took to the Senate floor to praise Joe Biden for committing to choosing a black female as his nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court.Chuck claimed: “Until 1981, this powerful body, the Supreme Court, was all white men.”Fact check: Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was a black man, was on the Supreme Court from 1967 to 1991.Chuck's reference to 1981, I'm assuming, was because it's when Ronald Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor.To Chuck, it's all the same. Women, black, gay - they're just different branches of the identity politics tree to him. So I'm not surprised he got confused.[Source: Breitbart, Waking Up Right Newsletter]

In this episode of “Keen On”, Andrew is joined by Randall Kennedy, the author of “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word - With a New Introduction by the Author”. Randall Kennedy served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the United States Court of Appeals and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. He is a member of the bar of the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States. He teaches courses on contracts, criminal law, and the regulation of race relations at Harvard Law School. Visit our website: https://lithub.com/story-type/keen-on/ Email Andrew: a.keen@me.com Watch the show live on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ajkeen Watch the show live on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankeen/ Watch the show live on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lithub Watch the show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/LiteraryHub/videos Subscribe to Andrew's newsletter: https://andrew2ec.substack.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode of Keen On, Andrew is joined by Randall Kennedy, the author of Say It Loud!: On Race, Law, History, and Culture, to discuss the key social justice issues of our time—from George Floyd to antiracism to inequality and the Supreme Court. Find more Keen On episodes and additional videos on Lit Hub's YouTube Channel! ________________________ Randall Kennedy is Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School where he teaches courses on contracts, criminal law, and the regulation of race relations. He was born in Columbia, South Carolina. For his education he attended St. Albans School, Princeton University, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the United States Court of Appeals and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. He is a member of the bar of the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States. A member of the American Law Institute, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Association, Mr. Kennedy is also a Trustee emeritus of Princeton University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Mr. Civil Rights?"  Who could that be?  It has to be someone pretty important to the Civil Rights Movement to get a nickname like that, but most people don't even know who it is!  On this episode we explore the legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall, possible the most overlooked activist of the era. Key Topics: Civil Rights Movement, Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson, Supreme Court   Cheers!Support the show here and get access to all sorts of bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=34398347&fan_landing=trueJoin the conversation on Facebook at "Drinks with Great Minds in History" & Follow the show on Instagram @drinkswithgreatminds_podcastMusic:Hall of the Mountain King by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3845-hall-of-the-mountain-kingLicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Artwork by @Tali Rose... Check it out!Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/user?u=34398347&fan_landing=true)

The Court had a calm and peaceful week taking no new cases and issuing three unanimous opinions in fairly technical cases. Your hosts explain all of those opinions, and then Zack has a fascinating discussion with Judge Douglas Ginsburg about his career, clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and why he felt the need to escape the Harvard faculty even though he had just received tenure. Zack then grills GianCarlo about the inner workings of The Food Court--the Supreme Court's cafeteria. Tune in to find out which Justice to blame if you don't like the food!Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @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.

The Court had a calm and peaceful week taking no new cases and issuing three unanimous opinions in fairly technical cases. Your hosts explain all of those opinions, and then Zack has a fascinating discussion with Judge Douglas Ginsburg about his career, clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and why he felt the need to escape […]

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in March, 1978 continues to hinder tribal sovereignty on a daily basis. The ruling in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe stripped tribes of most criminal prosecutions against non-Indians. Those cases became the responsibility of the federal government. In his dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote “I am of the view that Indian tribes enjoy, as a necessary aspect of their retained sovereignty, the right to try and punish all persons who commit offenses against tribal law within the reservation.” The Violence Against Women Act was an attempt to remedy the persistent trend of non-Native abusers of Native women slipping through the cracks of the federal justice system. We’ll look at the distressing consequences of Oliphant and efforts through the years to fix it.

Hello Everyone, In this episode, Dr. Regina Banks-Hall, honors the life of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall

Subscribe Now on YouTube! Unscripted Her celebrates Black History by celebrating an American cultural icon - HBCUs. Unscripted Her breaks down HBCU history and culture, and the importance of attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities. As graduates from Howard University, Hampton University and Lincoln University, we share, from a multigenerational perspective, stories of how HBCUs prepared us to be black women in the legal, business, and STEM careers and academic settings. Corporate and new ventures attorney Donnellda discusses her shared legacy with Justice Thurgood Marshall - they both graduated from Lincoln University and graduated first in their class from Howard Law School. Attorney Lynda and business expert Ellen discuss how their HBCU experiences gave them the confidence to be the “only” in the room. Join us for this break down on HBCUs. Let's stay connected: UnscriptedHer.com YouTube Instagram Facebook Twitter --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/unscriptedher/support

Randall Kennedy, JD is a Harvard Professor of law. He teaches courses on Contracts, Civil Rights, Racial Relations and the Law, and Constitutional Law. Professor Kennedy has written several books and scholarly publications. Including the forthcoming, “Say it Loud On Race, Law, History and Culture.” He has studied at University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also was an editor for the Yale Law Journal. After law school, he served as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall and served on the NAACP Legal Defensive Fund. You can learn more about Professor Kennedy from his interviews on C-SPAN, “Common Law” podcast on UVA Law, The American Prospect and CNN. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/StateofEducation/support

Constitutional Law Professor Richard Pildes joins The Great Battlefield podcast to talk about our democracy, his legal career from clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall, to arguing voting rights and election law cases before The US Supreme Court, to the tests Trump has posed.

Too much power for and against the People lies in the hands of nine people, the Justices of the US Supreme Court. What you need to know about the history of the Court from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas, and the notorious RBG to Amy Coney Barrett, and why it matters to Black Lives! Special guest, Bakari Sellers. Also on the Docket: Taraji P. Henson split with fiancé Kelvin Hayden, does she have to give the ring back? And rapper Saweetie and Birkingate, is that bag real or fake? Brennan Center finding on the negative consequences to voting rights from Shelby County v. Holder verdict can be found here. Additional reading on the career of Justice Thurgood Marshall here and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg here. Follow Eboni K. Williams on IG or TW, and Dustin Ross on IG or TW Holding Court with Eboni K. Williams is produced by Uppity Productions LLC in association with Dossie Media LLC, and presented by The Black Effect Network from iHeartRadio and Charlamagne tha God. Audio production services provided by One of One Productions. Music provided courtesy of EpidemicSound.com. Discussions in this podcast are for general information and entertainment purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Always. Consult. A. Lawyer. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

Dave Plier and Dave Schwan talk about this week’s moments in history including the sculpting of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, on the face of Mount Rushmore in the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota; James Bond’s debut on the big screen with ‘Dr. No’; fun facts about ‘The Partridge Family’ at 50, the impact of Justice […]

US President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday (US time), capping a dramatic reshaping of the federal judiciary that will resonate for a generation and that he hopes will provide a needed boost to his reelection effort.Republican senators are already lining up for a swift confirmation of Barrett before the November 3 election, as they aim to lock in conservative gains in the federal judiciary before a potential transition of power. Trump, meanwhile, is hoping the nomination will serve to galvanise his supporters as he looks to fend off Democrat Joe Biden.Trump hailed Barrett as "a woman of remarkable intellect and character," saying he had studied her record closely before making the pick."I looked and I studied, and you are very eminently qualified," he said as Barrett stood next to him in the Rose Garden.An ideological heir to the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett would fill the seat vacated after the September 18 death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in what would be the sharpest ideological swing since Clarence Thomas replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago. She would be the sixth justice on the nine-member court to be appointed by a Republican president, and the third of Trump's first term in office.For Trump, whose 2016 victory hinged in large part on reluctant support from conservative and white evangelicals on the promise of filling Scalia's seat with a conservative, the latest nomination in some ways brings his first term full circle. Even before Ginsburg's death, Trump was running on having confirmed in excess of 200 federal judges, fulfilling a generational aim of conservative legal activists.US President Donald Trump walks along the Colonnade with Judge Amy Coney Barrett after a news conference to announce Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court. (Photo / AP)"This is my third such nomination after Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, and it is a very proud moment indeed," Trump said in the Rose Garden.Trump joked that the confirmation process ahead "should be easy" and "extremely non controversial", though it is likely to be anything. No court nominee has been considered so close to a presidential election before, and early voting is already underway. He encouraged Democrats to take up her nomination swiftly and to "refrain from personal and partisan attacks".In 2016, Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to fill the election-year vacancy, saying voters should have a say in the lifetime appointment. Senate Republicans say they will move ahead, arguing the circumstances are different now the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate would vote "in the weeks ahead" on Barrett's confirmation, adding that Trump "could not have made a better decision" in nominating the appellate court judge.The announcement came before Ginsburg was buried beside her husband next week at Arlington National Cemetery. On Friday, she was the first woman to lie in state at the Capitol, and mourners flocked to the Supreme Court for two days before that to pay respects.The set design, with large American flags hung between the Rose Garden colonnades, appeared to be modelled on the way the White House was decorated when President Bill Clinton named Ginsburg as his nominee in 1993.Barrett said she was "truly humbled" by the nomination, adding she would be "mindful of who came before me". She praised Ginsburg upon accepting the nomination, saying: "She has won the admiration of women across the country and indeed all across the world."Within hours of Ginsburg's death, Trump made clear he would nominate a woman for the seat, and later volunteered he was considering five candidates. But Barrett was the early favourite, and the only one to meet Trump.Judge Amy Coney Barrett. (Photo / AP)Barrett has been a ju...

In this episode, we pay tribute to the groundbreaking and iconic life of the “Notorious RBG,” Justice Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who left an indelible jurisprudential legacy of gender equality, civil rights, voting rights, and dignity for all people. Through her work as a law professor and head of the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project, her appointment by President Jimmy Carter to the federal bench and her elevation in 1993 to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton, Ginsburg has been referred to as the most important woman lawyer in the history of the Republic. In honoring Justice Ginsburg, we are joined by one the few Black women to lead one of the Nation’s 204 law schools, Howard University School of Law alumna and current Washburn University School of Law Dean Carla Pratt. We discuss Ginsburg’s impact on the Supreme Court as an advocate and a jurist and explore the comparisons between Justice Thurgood Marshall’s work on racial equality and Justice Ginsburg’s work on gender equality. The host for this episode is Clint Odom, NUL Senior Vice President of Policy & Advocacy. From the National Urban League, For The Movement discusses persistent policy, social, and civil rights issues affecting communities of color. Discussed in this episode: ACLU Affirmative Action Affordable Care Act/Obamacare African American law school deans @AJCGlobal (American Jewish Committee) Ambassador Delano Lewis Anti-racist #BlackJewishUnity week Brown v. Board of Education Columbia University Law School Equal Protection Clause Equal Rights Act Gender equality Georgetown University Law Center Professor Paul Butler Howard University School of Law Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg Joe Biden Judge Harry T. Edwards Judge Paul Watford Justice Clarence Thomas Justice Elena Kagan Justice Thurgood Marshall Legal Defense and Educational Fund Lilly Ledbetter National Public Radio Notorious RBG Penn State Dickinson Law of Law President Barack Obama Reproductive Rights Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Title VII Topeka, Kansas U.S. Senator Bob Dole U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Voting Rights Verizon https://washburnlaw.edu/profiles/pratt-carla.html   @washburnlawdean Washburn University Law School  

Daniel and Robert talk about the importance of being heard, seeing someone great in their prime, and give out a bunch of awards for this 2017 biopic of Justice Thurgood Marshall.Notes/links from the episode:Blue Like Jazz by Donald MillerLegalAffairs story of the real life case

The Thompson Center had the great pleasure of interviewing Dean Margaret Raymond, who has served as the Fred W. and Vi Miller Dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School since July 2011. Dean Raymond served as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court and the late Judge James L. Oakes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following her clerkships, she practiced as a commercial litigator and a criminal defense lawyer. Dean Raymond's scholarship focuses on constitutional criminal procedure, substantive criminal law, and the professional responsibility of lawyers. She is the co-author of a Professional Responsibility casebook, The Law and Ethics of Law Practice (with Hughes, 2d ed. 2015). From 2013-2019, she served as a member of the Standing Committee on Professional Ethics of the Wisconsin State Bar and she participates regularly in providing ethics CLE programming to Wisconsin lawyers.

Today we celebrate Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States

Today we celebrate Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States

On March 20, 1968, Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall (1908-93) introduced Associate Justice Abraham "Abe" Fortas (1910-1982) at the American University Washington College of Law Convocation on the 75th Anniversary of American University. This is a recording of Marshall's introduction.This recording is from the Michigan State University G. Robert Vincent Voice Library collection. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The topic of busing proved to be one of the most volatile issues in metro Detroit during the early 1970s. This came to a head in the case of Milliken v. Bradley. Two federal court orders mandated the forced busing of children to remedy segregation in metro Detroit. The reaction: The KKK dynamited buses in Pontiac. Thousands took to the streets. The question eventually landed in the U.S. Supreme Court, where a 5-4 decision put a stop to the planned move. We talk with historian Kevin Boyle, a Northwestern University professor and author of the book, "Arc of Justice." He's an expert on the history of race relations in Detroit; Joyce Baugh, a Central Michigan University professor emerita, who has written a book on the topic. And we hear Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in the case, in which he predicted the high court's decision would prove to be a disaster for racial justice in this country. 

Today we celebrate Thurgood Marshall, the first African American justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Today we celebrate Thurgood Marshall, the first African American justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Podcast: Episode 1 In this episode Attorney Brian Gaither, Attorney Andre Smith, and Attorney Julius Collins discuss why they became attorneys, the legacy of the late great Justice Thurgood Marshall and expungements. Tune in and get the verdict.

Has the history of how our constitutional rights came to be protected on campus been forgotten? Professor Randall L. Kennedy believes it has. It’s a history even he wasn’t familiar with until recently. On this episode of So to Speak, Professor Kennedy explains how civil rights activists in the 1950s and 60s secured early victories for free speech, due process, and public assembly on high school and college campuses. Professor Kennedy teaches courses on contracts, criminal law, and the regulation of race relations at Harvard Law School, and he is the author of “The Forgotten Origins of the Constitution on Campus.” Prior to arriving at Harvard, he was a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall at the United States Supreme Court. BONUS: Check out and subscribe to the new FIRE-sponsored podcast, Clear and Present Danger: A History of Free Speech. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

#131 "Marshall" Live Hard. Fight Harder. Review... The Not Old Better Show, Movies for Adults October 2, 2017 is the 50th anniversary of Justice Thurgood Marshall's swearing-in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on October 2, 1967. He was the Court's 96th justice and the first African American to hold a seat on the Supreme Court. If you have to see one motion picture this weekend or place a film on your must-see list of fall films, I wholeheartedly recommend Marshall. As the title suggests, the movie is about Thurgood Marshall, the iconic civil rights attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who used the courtroom to break racial barriers and help decimate institutionalized Jim Crow when he won the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared state laws that established segregation in schools to be unconstitutional. It is fitting that the movie is being released on the 50th anniversary of Marshall being named the first black Supreme Court justice. Enjoy "Marshall."

It was the early morning hours of Oct. 6, 1976. Adolph Lyons, a 24-year-old African-American, was driving through Los Angeles with a broken taillight. Two LAPD officers in a squad car pulled Lyons over, and approached with their pistols drawn. Lyons got out, the cops turned him around, spread eagle, and placed his hands on the back of his head. Lyons’ keys, still in his hand, dug into his scalp and he complained. One of the police officers called that resisting arrest and grabbed Lyons from behind, putting an arm across Lyons’ neck. The cop kept Lyons in the chokehold until he passed out and dropped to the ground. Lyons awoke to find that he had urinated and defecated on himself and was coughing up blood and dirt. The police officers who had pulled him over then issued him a citation -- a traffic ticket for the broken taillight -- and let Lyons go. Reporter Dave Gilson of Mother Jones Magazine rediscovered this story after the death of Eric Garner last summer. Garner had been put in a chokehold by a police officer on Staten Island, N.Y.; his death was later ruled a homicide. Gilson wanted to know if the use of chokeholds by police had ever come before the federal courts -- and it had. Adolph Lyons sued the City of Los Angeles for violating his constitutional rights: the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and the right to equal protection, under the Fourteenth Amendment. His case rose all the way to the Supreme Court, where, in 1982, the high court included the nation’s first African-American Justice and the grandson of slaves: Justice Thurgood Marshall. In this week’s DecodeDC podcast,host Andrea Seabrook and Mother Jones reporter Dave Gilson recount the case of Adolph Lyons and the legal battle over race, police and chokeholds. The case’s similarities with the case of Eric Garner are palpable and stunning. And the conclusions of Thurgood Marshall show that the issues of race, police and chokeholds struck people of conscience long before Eric Garner’s death.​

With the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 and DOMA rulings, same-sex marriage is now legal in California and same-sex married couples can receive federal benefits across the nation. These landmark decisions for gay rights have sparked the question: is nationwide marriage equality on the way? On this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams will talk with Constitutional Law Professors Mark Tushnet and William Eskridge about what the history of both the gay rights and the civil rights movements have to say for the future of gay rights in America. • Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet specializes in constitutional law and theory, with a focus in examining the practice of judicial review in the U.S. and worldwide. He has served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. Currently, his focus is in constitutional history and the development of civil liberties. He is known for his critical and controversial analysis of Supreme Court rulings, including Brown v. The Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. • William Eskridge, Yale Law Professor, focuses in statutory interpretation. He represented a same-sex-married couple from 1990-1995 who sued for recognition of their marriage and has published many books covering the political framework of gay rights. The historical component of his book GayLaw was the basis of an amicus brief he drafted for the Cato Institute and for much of the Court’s (and dissenting opinion’s) analysis in Lawrence vs. Texas, the decision which made same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state. These law professors will provide unique insight to the future of gay rights through their knowledge and experience with Supreme Court rulings and civil liberties movements. Thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

Host: Chris Mooney So who's right, factually, about politics and science? Who speaks truth, and who's just spinning? It's kind of the million dollar question. If we could actually answer it, we'd have turned political debate itself into a... well, a science. And is such an answer possible? What does the scientific evidence suggest? In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Chris Mooney brought back a popular guest from last year, Yale's Dan Kahan, to discuss this very question-one that they've been emailing about pretty much continually ever since Kahan appeared on the show. In the episode, Kahan and Mooney not only review but debate the evidence on whether "motivated" ideological biases are the same on both sides of the political aisle—or alternatively, whether they're actually "asymmetrical." Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at the Yale Law School. He's also the Eli Goldston Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. His research focuses on "cultural cognition"-how our social and political group affiliations affect our views of what's true in contested areas like global warming and nuclear power-and motivated reasoning. Before then, he served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90).

Host: Chris Mooney Why do Americans claim to love science, but then selectively reject its findings when they're inconvenient? And why do some cultural groups reject certain types of scientific findings (about, say, harm to the environment), whereas others reject others? Yale law professor Dan Kahan is doing some of the most cutting edge work right now when it comes to figuring this out. Kahan is trying to resolve what he has called the "American Culture War of Fact," by determining how it is that our core values-whether we are "individualists" or "communitarians," "hierarchs" or "egalitarians"—can sometimes interfere with our perceptions of reality.  Most intriguingly—or, if you prefer, disturbingly—Kahan has found that deep-seated values even determine who we consider to be a scientific expert in the first place. His results have very large implications for how to depolarize an array of scientific issues-and how to communicate about controversial science in general. Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law at Yale Law School. In addition to risk perception, his areas of research include criminal law and evidence. He has served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90).