POPULARITY
11 episodes with Legal defense fund
17 episodes with Legal defense fund
6 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
4 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
3 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
3 episodes with Legal defense fund
3 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
15 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
4 episodes with Legal defense fund
2 episodes with Legal defense fund
The panicked response by Donald Trump and his White House support staff to the backlash against his racist social media post suggest Trump miscalculated how much racism the American people are willing to tolerate, which may be a reflection of the bubble in which he lives. Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, and Eddie Glaude, a professor at Princeton University, talk with Michael Steele about the regressive nature of Trump's brazen racism and the extent to which Trump's racism is reflected in attitudes among the general American public.Michael Feinberg, former FBI official, joins to discuss reports of the FBI inviting state election officials for a meeting.Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general, discusses taking Donald Trump to court for withholding funding from a vital infrastructure project that will have an effect on the lives of millions of Americans.And Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, discusses how the anti-immigrant zealotry of the Trump administration and the corruption of Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi are driving the Justice Department into the ground. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz is trying to raise money for his legal defense because the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the massive Somali fraud and his potential interference with ICE agents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A major milestone for the fight against racial injustice. Fifty new attorneys trained through the Legal Defense Fund's Marshall-Motley Scholars Program are entering the field, ready to advance civil rights and justice across the South. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week's News Roundup, Bridget and Producer Joey cover the tech news stories you might have missed. Updates on X and Grok creating nonconsensual sex images. They're still doing it, but now they're at least pretending they aren't: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceqz7pyd303o Our deep dive episode into what’s happening with Grok: https://podcasts.apple.com/xk/podcast/elons-grok-sexualized-renee-goods-dead-body-and-hes/id1520715907?i=1000744528946 A Phoenix gay bar announced a plan to use AI. Should they? https://www.lookoutnews.org/a-phoenix-gay-bar-announced-a-plan-to-use-artificial-intelligence-should-they The Tea App is back, and they want you to know they care about security now. https://mashable.com/article/tea-app-is-back-but-not-on-apple-app-store An investigation by the Fuller Project found that an algorithm used by the Veterans' Affairs Administration to determine which veterans get treatment prioritizes white men: https://fullerproject.org/story/artificial-intelligence-veteran-suicide-prevention-algorithm-favors-men/ GoFundMe Ignores Own Rules by Hosting a Legal-Defense Fund for the ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good: https://www.wired.com/story/gofundme-ice-jonathan-ross-renee-good-fundraiser/ Let us know what you think about these stories by emailing hello@tangoti.com or leaving a comment on Spotify. Follow Bridget and TANGOTI on social media! || instagram.com/bridgetmarieindc/ || tiktok.com/@bridgetmarieindc || youtube.com/@ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet || bsky.app/profile/tangoti.bsky.socialSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Dec. 30, 2025American Democracy in 2025: The SCOTUS Case Which May End 60 Years of Protection for Minority VotersWe're looking back at our most important stories of 2025, and what changes to expect for American democracy in 2026. If you're a voter, it's been a tough year. If you're a minority voter, it's been a really BAD year.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links. To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - (October) In a Big Week for Voting Rights, U.S Supreme Court Hears More Arguments in Louisiana vs. Callais. VRA Protections for Minority Voters are at Stake. American Democracy Minute - (March) US Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments March 24th in Louisiana v. Callais with Protections for Minority Voters Hanging in the BalanceSCOTUS Blog - Louisiana v. CallaisBallotpedia - Majority-minority districtsNAACP Legal Defense Fund - What's at Stake in Louisiana v. Callais Brennan Center for Justice - Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme CourtGroups Taking Action:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticeRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email? Sign up here!#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #MajorityMinority #VRASection2 #VotingRights #RacialGerrymandering #VRA
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Dec. 25, 2025The U.S. Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision will likely be released early next year, and its rehearing in October was one of the big voting rights stories of the year. Brian is off for a couple of days, so we're rebroadcasting this story from October. Happy holidays!Outlook for the Voting Rights Act Dims, as Court's Conservatives Appear to Turn Away From Their Own PrecedentThe conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to agree Oct. 15th with arguments that the Voting Rights Act Section 2's majority-minority voting districts conflicted with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. A decision is expected next year. Today's LinksArticles & Resources:NAACP Legal Defense Fund – Louisiana v. Callais: Protecting fair representation for Black voters in Louisiana and safeguarding the Voting Rights ActU.S. Supreme Court - Transcript of Oral Arguments in Louisiana v. CallaisSupreme Court Oral Arguments - Audio with transcript on Louisiana v. Callais SCOTUS Blog - Court appears ready to curtail major provision of the Voting Rights ActBallotPedia - Majority Minority DistrictsGroups Taking Action:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticeRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email? Sign up here!Are you a radio station? Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #USSupremeCourt #SCOTUS #Louisiana #LouisianavCallais #RacialGerrymandering, #VotingRightsAct #VRA
What's at stake for the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court in the pending Louisiana v. Callais case? Will the Court weigh in on the question whether private parties can sue to enforce Section 2 of the VRA, as was assumed by all until recently? What's the big picture on the Voting Rights Act and the 2026 elections? On Season 7, Episode 3 of the ELB Podcast, we speak with Samantha Blencke, of the Native American Rights Fund, Ellen Katz of the University of Michigan, and Deuel Ross of the Legal Defense Fund.
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Nov. 24, 2025With Candidates Ready to File, SCOTUS Temporarily Blocks Ruling on TX Racial Gerrymandering, LA Gerrymandering Decision Still PendingAs congressional candidates get ready for the 2026 midterms, the districts in which they run are still in limbo, waiting for the outcomes of two important racial gerrymandering cases in Texas and Louisiana.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links. To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - Trump-Requested Texas Congressional District Gerrymandering Blocked by Federal Court Panel U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas – El Paso – MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERU.S. Supreme Court - Appeal by State of Texas in League of United Latin American Citizens v. AbbottTexas Tribune - Supreme Court temporarily restores Texas' new congressional mapNPR - Redistricting deadlines for the midterms loom as states wait for a Supreme Court rulingAmerican Democracy Minute - Outlook for the Voting Rights Act Dims, as Court's Conservatives Appear to Turn Away From Their Own Precedent Groups Taking Action:LULAC, MALDEF, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #Texas #Louisiana #LouisianaVCallais #RacialGerrymandering #FairMaps #VRA #VotingRightsAct
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Callais v. Louisiana, a seminal redistricting case that focuses on the constitutionality of the state's congressional map. The court will consider whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-Black district in 2024 — which was required by the Voting Rights Act — is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments. John Cusick serves as Assistant Counsel for the Legal Defense Fund, the organization arguing to keep the map as it is. He spoke with WRKF's Report for America Corps Member, Alex Cox, for more.The Symphony Chorus of New Orleans takes audiences on an emotional, musical journey through one of the darkest episodes in human history as it presents Donald McCullough's Holocaust Cantata: Songs from the Camps. The work is based on research of original music sung by those imprisoned in concentration camps. Steven Edwards, music director of the Symphony Chorus of New Orleans, joins us with more.Next Tuesday, Oct. 29, WWNO will host a first-of-its-kind benefit concert. The event will honor contributions in public radio and feature New Orleans musical legends Big Sam's Funky Nation and Stanton Moore. WWNO's development assistant and classical network coordinator, Sara Henegan, tells us what's on deck at the upcoming event.__Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Diane Mack. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber and our assistant producer is Aubry Procell. Our engineer is Garrett Pittman.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, the NPR App, and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you! Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!
Leah, Kate, and Melissa break down last week's agonizing two-and-a-half-hour oral argument in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could see the already weakened Voting Rights Act gutted even further. They highlight the themes that emerged and dig into the case's broader context with Sam Spital, Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, then recap the week's other arguments and the latest legal news. Finally, Leah talks with Joyce Vance about her new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable: A Manual for Keeping a Democracy.Favorite things:Leah: The Bow Street Runners series, Lisa Kleypas; Flirting Lessons, Jasmine GuilloryKate: What Are We Living Through? By Jedediah Britton-Purdy & David Pozen (Boston Review); Originalist ‘Bombshell' Complicates Case on Trump's Power to Fire Officials, Adam Liptak (NYT)Melissa: The Lawyer, the Witch, and the Witness: Proving Witchcraft in the English Courts, Trace M. Maddox (Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities); Slow Dance, Rainbow Rowell; One Battle After Another Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Oct. 17, 2025Outlook for the Voting Rights Act Dims, as Court's Conservatives Appear to Turn Away From Their Own PrecedentThe conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to agree Oct. 15th with arguments that the Voting Rights Act Section 2's majority-minority voting districts conflicted with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. A decision is expected next year. Some podcasting platforms strip out our links. To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:NAACP Legal Defense Fund – Louisiana v. Callais: Protecting fair representation for Black voters in Louisiana and safeguarding the Voting Rights ActU.S. Supreme Court - Transcript of Oral Arguments in Louisiana v. CallaisSupreme Court Oral Arguments - Audio with transcript on Louisiana v. Callais SCOTUS Blog - Court appears ready to curtail major provision of the Voting Rights Act BallotPedia - Majority Minority Districts Groups Taking Action:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticeRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email? Sign up here!Are you a radio station? Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #USSupremeCourt #SCOTUS #Louisiana #LouisianavCallais #RacialGerrymandering, #VotingRightsAct #VRA
On this special episode of Native Land Pod, host Angela Rye is joined by attorney for the Legal Defense Fund, Janai Nelson. Ms. Nelson joins us just after leaving the Supreme Court, where she argued a case which could have radical implications for the Voting Rights Act and redistricting across the country: Louisiana v. Callais. In 2024, Louisiana was found to be in violation of the VRA and was forced to redraw their congressional map. The original map created only one majority Black district out of six total districts, in a state where roughly 1/3rd of the population is Black. Ms. Nelson and the Legal Defense Fund argued in favor of the new map, which created two majority Black districts, in the Supreme Court back in March of 2025. The highest court has called them back to hear arguments AGAIN, a move rarely taken, except for with the most consequential of cases (Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, etc.). If Louisiana’s original map is allowed to stand, with only one majority Black district, it would effectively gut the Voting Rights Act, and lead to a reduction in representation for Black people across the country. Read more: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais-faq/ https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-act Watch Oral Arguments: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-racial-gerrymandering-voting-rights/664542 Want to ask Angela a question? Subscribe to our YouTube channel to participate in the chat. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Oct. 15, 2025The Oct. 15 Louisiana v. Callais Voting Rights Case Depends on the Interpretation of the 14th & 15th Amendments. What Do They Say? Oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais are scheduled for October 15th in the U.S. Supreme Court, with interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendments under debate, and the Voting Rights Act in the balance. Some podcasting platforms strip out our links. To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:National Archives - 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)National Archives - 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Voting Rights (1870)National Archives - Voting Rights Act (1965)Brennan Center for Justice - The Voting Rights Act ExplainedNAACP Legal Defense Fund - Louisiana v. Callais: Protecting fair representation for Black voters in Louisiana and safeguarding the Voting Rights Act Voices of Democracy Project - Transcript of LYNDON B. JOHNSON, “WE SHALL OVERCOME” (15 MARCH 1965) Speech to CongressLBJ Library - Video of Special Message to the Congress: The American Promise [on the Voting Rights Act], 3/15/65 (Also known as his "We Shall Overcome" speech)Groups Taking Action:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticeRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email? Sign up here!Are you a radio station? Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #14thAmendment #15thAmendment #VotingRightsAct #LBJ #EqualProtectionClause #LouisianavCallais #FairMaps #VotingRights
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Oct. 14, 2025In a Big Week for Voting Rights, the Supreme Court Hears More Arguments in Louisiana vs. Callais. VRA Protections for Minority Voters are at Stake.Oct. 15th, a pivotal case in the future of the Voting Rights Act will be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. It pits the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause against 60 years of court precedent and 15th Amendment. Voting rights protections for minority Americans are at stake.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links. To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Brennan Center for Justice (2023) - The Voting Rights Act ExplainedAmerican Democracy Minute - In Puzzling Move, U.S. Supreme Court Orders More Arguments in Louisiana Redistricting Case Pitting VRA Against Equal Protections ClauseU.S. Supreme Court - Louisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al.American Democracy Minute - Louisiana's Racial Gerrymandering Defense to SCOTUS Switches from ‘It was for Partisan Reasons' to ‘The VRA is Unconstitutional' SCOTUS Blog - Supreme Court to hear arguments in pivotal case on the Voting Rights ActCenter for American Progress - Louisiana v. Callais: The End of the Voting Rights Act? Groups Taking Action:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email? Sign up here!#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #VRA #VotingRightsAct #RacialGerrymandering #VotingRights #LouisianavCallais #FairMaps #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Oct. 7, 2025U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Equal Protection Clause vs. the Voting Rights Act, and Revisits Big Money Campaign Funding Limits for Political PartiesTwo U.S. Supreme Court cases this term may allow the conservative majority to strike down Voting Rights Act protections of minority voters, and one of the few remaining limits to big money campaign spending in federal elections.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links. To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:PBS - Supreme Court term begins with cases on voting rights, tariffs and conversion therapyAll About Redistricting – Louisiana v. Callais (also Callais v. Landry, Robinson v. Callais) Brennan Center for Justice – Voting Rights Act Returns to the Supreme CourtAmerican Democracy Minute - In Puzzling Move, U.S. Supreme Court Orders More Arguments in Louisiana Redistricting Case Pitting VRA Against Equal Protections ClauseFederal Election Commission - National Republican Senatorial Committee et al v. Federal Election Commission et al (22-639 / 24-3051 / 24-621)SCOTUS Blog - Court takes up potentially important case on campaign-finance regulations American Democracy Minute - U.S. Supreme Court Takes Case Challenging Limits on Political Party Spending. It Could Open Up Another Flood of Money into Campaigns.Groups Taking Action:ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common CauseFind all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #EndCitizensUnited #FairMaps #RacialGerrymandering #VotingRightsAct #VRA #FreedomtoVote
Join Robert Ellsberg, publisher of Orbis Books, in this One On One interview with author Fr. Dustin Feddon, as they discuss More Than Half Way Home: A Story of Accompaniment in the Shadows of Incarceration.https://maryknoll.link/p1hWhen Dustin Feddon began accompanying men on death row and in solitary confinement, he saw a broken system that failed man after man within its walls. Even for those in “release” programs, what he saw—and the men he met—compelled him to ask if there could be new kinds of spaces, not confined spaces or “halfway houses,” but communities that welcomed people back into the human family, re-affirming their dignity? The answer he discovered, was a resounding Yes. That yes began a new community—and the story of Joseph House.Fr. Dustin Feddon, a Catholic priest of the diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee, is founder and executive director of Joseph House, a home and community for men released from prison. Fr. Dustin and Joseph House have partnered with Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), Legal Defense Fund, and other groups fighting for greater justice and mercy for those impacted by the criminal justice systemGet your copy today: https://maryknoll.link/p1hAll author royalties will go to support the work of Joseph House.#RobertEllsberg #OrbisBooks #DustinFeddon #equaljustice #activism #ministry #humandignity
The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Sept. 5, 2025Louisiana's Racial Gerrymandering Defense to SCOTUS Switches from ‘It was for Partisan Reasons' to ‘The VRA is Unconstitutional'The State of Louisiana's new brief for a U.S. Supreme Court racial gerrymandering case now claims Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional because it uses race-conscious redistricting. Their shifting argument may suggest the state thinks more justices are ready to strike down the VRA.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links. To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources: All About Redistricting - Louisiana v. Callais (also Callais v. Landry, Robinson v. Callais)NAACP Legal Defense Fund - Louisiana v. Callais FAQLouisiana Attorney General - Supplemental U.S. Supreme Court Brief Campaign Legal Center - Defending States' Ability to Use the Voting Rights Act for Fair Maps (Louisiana v. Callais/Robinson v. Callais)SCOTUSBlog - (Commentary) The future of voting rightsGroups Taking Action:ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticeRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email? Sign up here!Are you a radio station? Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy #DemocracyNews #ProtectElections #ProtectPollWorkers
Ironically, mere minutes after Texas Republicans pushed through a racially-gerrymandered congressional map ordered by Donald Trump to cut his losses in next year's midterms, we convened a panel of esteemed Black leaders from across the D/FW area to discuss the state of voting rights 60 years since LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965. We were pleased to team with the Legal Defense Fund to host a panel featuring former Dallas City Council Member for District 3 Casey Thomas, Grand Prairie City Council Mayor Pro Tem Junior Ezeonu, and Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons at the DEC Network Center in Dallas.Learn more about the Legal Defense Fund at https://www.naacpldf.org/.Learn more about the DEC Network Center at https://dallasbuilds.org/organization-profile/the-dallas-entrepreneur-center-dec-networkProgress Texas' financial reserves have dropped to about 3 months worth of funding. Help us avoid going on a permanent vacation this summer by becoming a sustaining member: https://progresstexas.org/join-pt-summer-vacation-membership-driveThanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at https://progresstexas.org.
Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:After promising the families of July 4th flood victims that flood relief would take a top priority in the second special session, the Trump-gerrymandered congressional map is the only item on the agenda for today at the House: https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/20/politics/texas-redistricting-california...California Republicans are getting nervous as preparations to allow that state's voters to approve a retaliatory redistricting of the Golden State: https://www.axios.com/2025/08/19/newsom-trump-texas-california-redistricting-democrats...Several Democratic House members who had agreed to DPS tails have "ripped the slip" and joined Fort Worth Rep. Nicole Collier during her long-term stay on the House floor: https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-texas-nicole-collier-capitol-protest-10f8e3f721a507237d5272ccd1b2f81b...Austin Rep. Sheryl Cole gave us details on a public altercation she had on Tuesday morning with her DPS handler, who grew frustrated after he lost track of her while she was walking on an Austin trail: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/update-austin-rep-sheryl-cole-on-public-scrape-with/id1552998795?i=1000722710239...Meanwhile, the Texas Senate has passed all kinds of MAGA business, from the bathroom bill, to additional power to the Attorney General to press election fraud cases, to more leeway for Texas law enforcement agencies to conceal complaints against their officers: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/18/texas-senate-second-special-session-thc-disaster-relief-bathroom-bills/Dallas/Fort Worth friends: Join Progress Texas Institute and the Legal Defense Fund in Dallas for a live podcast taping, featuring Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, at the DEC Network Center—honoring the years since the signing of the Voting Rights Act and a review of where voting rights stand today, amid redistricting threats. Admission is free! https://act.progresstexas.org/a/vra_event_2025Austin friends: tickets are on sale now for our live podcast taping with legendary Austin FC goalkeeper Brad Stuver on September 15 at Hopsquad Brewing in Austin! Tickets are limited and are available here: https://act.progresstexas.org/a/allstaractivism_2025Progress Texas' financial reserves have dropped to about 3 months worth of funding. Help us avoid going on a permanent vacation this summer by becoming a sustaining member: https://progresstexas.org/join-pt-summer-vacation-membership-driveThanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at https://progresstexas.org
Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:Fort Worth Rep. Nicole Collier spent the night last night on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives, refusing a Texas DPS tail that Republicans have required for all of the Democratic quorum breakers to leave the Capitol: https://abc7ny.com/post/democratic-texas-state-rep-nicole-collier-slept-house-floor-protest-refusing-demand-law-enforcement-escort/17584775/...A nonviolent protest and solidarity gathering on behalf of Rep. Collier is happening tonight (Tuesday 8/19) at the Capitol: https://www.mobilize.us/handsoffcentraltexas/event/830948/...At least four of Collier's supporters were arrested last night after refusing to leave their vigil: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNhc65Ju5LX/?igsh=Y3czYnhocGV2ZTI0...A new analysis of the Trump map shows that it will extend what is already a disproportionate level of Republican representation in Texas relative to the popular vote: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/18/texas-redistricting-maps-charts-analysis/?_bhlid=8e069a6f680e3d5c42668d3fccf9cea202d76672...A coalition of legal defense groups are preparing their challenge to the new Texas map: https://thehill.com/homenews/5458835-democratic-aligned-nonprofit-civil-rights-groups-ready-to-sue-over-texas-congressional-map/Those new Ten Commandments posters plastered all over your kid's school are causing tension: https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2025/08/19/tensions-rise-in-texas-as-students-return-to-school-under-new-ten-commandments-law/The notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down West Texas A&M's ban on drag shows: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/08/19/court-blocks-West-Texas-AM-drag-ban/9401755573254/Dallas/Fort Worth friends: Join Progress Texas Institute and the Legal Defense Fund in Dallas for a live podcast taping, featuring Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, at the DEC Network Center—honoring the years since the signing of the Voting Rights Act and a review of where voting rights stand today, amid redistricting threats. Admission is free! https://act.progresstexas.org/a/vra_event_2025Austin friends: tickets are on sale now for our live podcast taping with legendary Austin FC goalkeeper Brad Stuver on September 15 at Hopsquad Brewing in Austin! Tickets are limited and are available here: https://act.progresstexas.org/a/allstaractivism_2025Progress Texas' financial reserves have dropped to about 3 months worth of funding. Help us avoid going on a permanent vacation this summer by becoming a sustaining member: https://progresstexas.org/join-pt-summer-vacation-membership-driveThanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at https://progresstexas.org.
Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:The Texas House Democrats who have stopped the Donald Trump-ordered redistricting of Texas for the last two weeks are expected to restore quorum today: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/18/us/politics/redistricting-texas-maps.html...In Houston, Colin Allred calls the quorum break a success in buying time and building understanding of the situation across the country: https://www.khou.com/video/news/local/texas/quorum-may-be-reached-in-texas-house-during-special-session-monday/285-0a9ea4b3-d53b-4992-b165-1c44a5ce4332...The quorum break has also inspired Democrats to up their efforts against Trump, and fired up the voting base: https://apnews.com/article/trump-democrats-redistricting-texas-california-newsom-9422a8300f5bcc2aa587bcb3811a1479...An example of that fired up base, over 5,000 braved a hot August afternoon to rally against the Trump map on Saturday at the Texas State Capitol: https://www.kut.org/politics/2025-08-16/texas-austin-redistricting-rally-protest-capitol-congressional-maps...Don't count on Republicans to dial back their efforts - or their dangerous and violent rhetoric, on which Houston Rep. Ann Johnson weighs in: https://x.com/voteannjohnson/status/1956737162277269904?s=46Republicans on the Tarrant County Commissioners Court - again - are scheming to cut voting locations, especially those at area colleges: https://www.keranews.org/government/2024-09-09/tarrant-county-early-voting-at-colleges...Commissioner Alisa Simmons sounds the alarm: https://x.com/commalsimmons/status/1957274231688851652?s=46Dallas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett says that should polling show her competitive, she'll consider running for the U.S. Senate: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/inside-politics/texas-politics/if-this-happens-congresswoman-jasmine-crockett-consider-run-senate/287-26b58ed8-f392-48e3-ac8c-61c7440346d0Dallas/Fort Worth friends: Join Progress Texas Institute and the Legal Defense Fund in Dallas for a live podcast taping, featuring Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, at the DEC Network Center—honoring the years since the signing of the Voting Rights Act and a review of where voting rights stand today, amid redistricting threats. Admission is free! https://act.progresstexas.org/a/vra_event_2025Austin friends: tickets are on sale now for our live podcast taping with legendary Austin FC goalkeeper Brad Stuver on September 15 at Hopsquad Brewing in Austin! Tickets are limited and are available here: https://act.progresstexas.org/a/allstaractivism_2025Progress Texas' financial reserves have dropped to about 3 months worth of funding. Help us avoid going on a permanent vacation this summer by becoming a sustaining member: https://progresstexas.org/join-pt-summer-vacation-membership-driveThanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at https://progresstexas.org.
Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:As day 12 of the Texas House quorum break arrives, those Dems have announced plans to return for the promised second special session, in part “to build a strong public legislative record for the upcoming legal battle” https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/14/texas-house-democrats-plan-return-quorum-break-redistricting/...They plan to wait until California's retaliatory redistricting map is unveiled, likely later today: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/14/us/texas-democrats-return.html...California Gavin Newsom will ask that state's voters to approve bypassing their independent redistricting commission on November 4: https://apnews.com/article/texas-california-redistricting-battle-f0ac783b6a5fd6ecaab0ca419125b72a...A Tarrant County judge has put off for about two weeks a ruling on a temporary restraining order against fundraising for the quorum breakers by Beto O'Rourke's Powered By People, Ken Paxton's push to charge O'Rourke with contempt of court, and O'Rourke's petition to move the case to El Paso: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article311706474.htmlKen Paxton finds his early polling lead against Senator John Cornyn to have more or less evaporated, as 80% of polled voters pay close attention to the ongoing redistricting drama: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/15/paxton-cornyn-texas-senate-poll-august-emerson/After gaining the votes of millions of Texans on promises to improve their economic situation, Donald Trump's policies are directly putting the brakes on the Texas economy: https://www.wfaa.com/article/money/economy/texas-economy-job-growth-slowing-amid-trade-war-immigration-crackdown-dallas-fed-report-says/287-13e06c6e-ea00-4914-a8ef-a352fb725141Considering the lack of condemnation from GOP leadership or their voter base, one can interpret the acceptance of recent racist comments from State Senator Mayes Middleton and Tarrant County GOP Chair Bo French as evidence that by nature, the Texas Republican Party is a racist organization: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2025/08/15/what-the-racist-attacks-on-democrats-say-about-the-texas-gop/As another weekend of protests and rallies arrives, Progress Texas reminds you to show up, be loud, and be proud - but also be smart, and don't follow anyone into anything unsafe, illegal or destructive: https://www.fightthetrumptakeover.com/Dallas/Fort Worth friends: Join Progress Texas Institute and the Legal Defense Fund in Dallas for a live podcast taping, featuring Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, at the DEC Network Center—honoring the years since the signing of the Voting Rights Act and a review of where voting rights stand today, amid redistricting threats. Admission is free! https://act.progresstexas.org/a/vra_event_2025Austin friends: tickets are on sale now for our live podcast taping with legendary Austin FC goalkeeper Brad Stuver on September 15 at Hopsquad Brewing in Austin! Tickets are limited and are available here: https://act.progresstexas.org/a/allstaractivism_2025Progress Texas' financial reserves have dropped to about 3 months worth of funding. Help us avoid going on a permanent vacation this summer by becoming a sustaining member: https://progresstexas.org/join-pt-summer-vacation-membership-driveThanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at https://progresstexas.org.
Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:An Illinois judge, approached by Ken Paxton under the assumption that he may bend the rules as Texas judges have, has declined Paxton's request that authorities in that state enforce arrest warrants against the Democratic quorum breakers sheltering there: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/13/texas-democrats-illinois-arrest-warrants-reject-extradite/...The quorum breakers took part in a call hosted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee yesterday, in which Obama Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries participated: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-attorney-general-eric-holder-house-democrats-redistricting/...It's important to keep in mind that Trump's redistricting push is an attempt to nullify Black and Brown voters - a fact that the mainstream media has failed to properly portray: https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/redistricting-racism-texas-abbott-florida-desantis-trump-rcna224891Should quorum be re-established at the Capitol, not only will the maps move forward, but also plans for local police departments to have broader control over officer misconduct records and the ability to shield them from public and press view: https://www.texasobserver.org/secrecy-g-file-police-records-texas-legislature/Trump and DOGE cuts, as they relate to the kids headed back to school, will unsurprisingly mostly impact programs designed to support and protect kids of color: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/14/texas-after-school-programs-trump-funding-cuts/Has Texas already devolved into a state of "Orban-style autocracy"? https://www.salon.com/2025/08/14/trump-abbott-and-the-gop-bring-orban-style-autocracy-to-texas/Dallas/Fort Worth friends: Join Progress Texas Institute and the Legal Defense Fund in Dallas for a live podcast taping, featuring Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, at the DEC Network Center—honoring the years since the signing of the Voting Rights Act and a review of where voting rights stand today, amid redistricting threats. Admission is free! https://act.progresstexas.org/a/vra_event_2025Austin friends: tickets are on sale now for our live podcast taping with legendary Austin FC goalkeeper Brad Stuver on September 15 at Hopsquad Brewing in Austin! Tickets are limited and are available here: https://act.progresstexas.org/a/allstaractivism_2025...The Brad Stuver interview will be co-hosted by Landon Cotham of the Austin FC podcast Moontower Soccer: https://www.moontowersoccer.com/Progress Texas' financial reserves have dropped to about 3 months worth of funding. Help us avoid going on a permanent vacation this summer by becoming a sustaining member: https://progresstexas.org/join-pt-summer-vacation-membership-driveThanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at https://progresstexas.org.
It's been another extraordinary week in the ongoing saga of Donald Trump's court battles—one that has seen major developments on multiple legal fronts as the former president continues to dominate headlines and court dockets. I want to take you right into the action of the past few days and give you a sense of just how frenetic, and consequential, these court proceedings have become.Just days ago, the Supreme Court handed a significant victory to Donald Trump's administration by allowing his executive order for sweeping reductions in the federal workforce to move forward for now. This order, issued back in February, directed government agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—so-called “reductions in force”—across the federal bureaucracy. Labor unions, local governments, and advocacy groups were quick to challenge it, concerned about the potential dismantling of large swaths of government operations. Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco initially blocked Trump's plan, but the justices, in a brief opinion, sided with the administration, at least temporarily. The order remains in effect pending appeals, and the Supreme Court's decision, with only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, means federal agencies are once again on notice to prepare for significant changes. Justice Jackson, in her 15-page dissent, warned of “irreparable harm” to the structure of the federal government if Trump's plan is executed before the courts fully resolve the legal questions.Meanwhile, another Trump executive action faced a major legal setback. In New Hampshire, a federal court blocked Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States. Civil rights organizations including the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund challenged Trump's executive order just days after a Supreme Court ruling that had opened the door for partial enforcement of the controversial policy. On July 10, the federal judge not only issued a preliminary injunction halting the order but also certified a nationwide class to ensure all affected children are protected. According to Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, this ruling reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for all babies born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' status.And that's not all. The New York criminal case against Donald Trump remains active on the court calendars, with a slew of filings, decisions, and orders continuing through this year. Sentencing audio from early January made headlines and provided a rare public window into proceedings that are as closely watched as they are contentious.With each ruling, appeal, and legal maneuver, the stakes grow higher—not just for Donald Trump, but for the nation's legal and political landscape. Whether it's the fate of thousands of federal workers, the citizenship status of newborns, or the outcome of high-profile criminal trials, Trump's time in the courtroom is shaping American life in real time.Thanks for tuning in, and make sure you come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe
It is meaningful and instructive that the Legal Defense Fund, which has championed racial justice at the voting booth, in education, housing and in the criminal justice system since its founding by Thurgood Marshall in 1940, is on the frontlines today, winning legal victories in a perilous moment for American democracy. LDF is defending the hard-won civil rights of Black Americans against racially imposed barriers, laid out in Project 2025 and implemented by President Trump and the 119th Congress. As LDF Associate Director-Counsel Todd Cox explains on this episode of Power Station, Congress has abdicated its responsibility as a check on the executive and the U.S. Department of Justice has rejected its mandate to enforce civil rights laws, leaving the LDF and its sister organizations to carry out the fight in the courts. LDF brings the expertise and infrastructure needed to litigate, advocate in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill, organize in impacted communities and educate the public and policymakers about what is at stake. Todd, a consummate civil rights litigator, looks to his grandparents, who fled autocracy and racial violence in the south, as his inspiration and guide. Hear him and share this powerful story.
Today we're diving into the sixth of our eight-part series, exploring how nonprofits champion democracy and protect voting rights. We'll unpack the strategies these organizations use to advocate for democratic participation while operating within the law. This conversation feels especially urgent as we see acceleration to challenges to voting rights and democratic institutions in 2025. Attorneys for this episode Tim Mooney Natalie Ossenfort Susan Finkle Sourlis Shownotes Current Events / Executive Orders · Trump Administration Directives on Voting & Civil Rights o Disbanded the DOJ Voting Rights Section's Election Monitoring Program. o Rescinded Biden executive order promoting federal agency voter registration partnerships o Halted implementation of interagency plans for voter access through social service agencies, and redirecting the Election Assistance Commission to implement draconian requirements outside the scope of its mission his authority over it. · Impact on Vulnerable Communities o Revoked supporting access to the ballot for voters with disabilities and non-English speakers. o Pressured USPS to deprioritize ballot delivery during election periods and issued an EO that attempts to reject mail in ballots postmarked on Election Day but received afterward. Nonlobbying Advocacy Although you may consider this an off year for federal elections (but many local and state elections are happening this year) – now is the time to work to ensure the protection of voting rights for the future. Advocacy can take many forms, lobbying is just one form. There are many ways organizations can advocate for change to ensure democracy and voting rights are secure. Organizing, educating the public, conducting research, executive branch and regulatory activities, working with your local state board of elections, trainings and litigation just to name a few way. Here are some ways organizations have undertake · Educate the Public o Democracy North Carolina launched a digital explainer on redistricting and gerrymandering for community audiences, and engaged in election protection work. This included monitoring polling stations for long lines, problems with voting, voting misinformation. · Hold a Rally or Event o Detroit Action organized “Halloween Early Vote,” a trunk or treat in a historically underrepresented part of Detroit, promoting civic pride, early voting… and candy. · Litigation as Advocacy o Campaign Legal Center and Southern Poverty Law Center sued Louisiana for new proof of citizenship documentation as a violation of federal law. o League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, the Democratic National Committee and others sued to overturn Trump's federal elections executive order, successfully enjoining some of the more egregious parts of it. Foundation-Funded Advocacy · Public and private foundations can fund 501(c)(3) nonpartisan voter engagement activities that do not support or oppose candidates for public office. · Special rules for private foundations re: voter registration drives (grants must be for nonpartisan VR drives conducted in 5 or more states over multiple election cycles), but community foundations can fund VR even for small, local, grassroots organizations. · Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York have supported nonpartisan voter education and rights litigation to strengthen democracy and public trust in government. Lobbying · Legislative Wins o New York: Enacted the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, pushed through with support from a coalition including Legal Defense Fund and Citizen Action of NY o New Mexico: Passed legislation mandating automatic and same-day voter registration following lobbying by ProgressNow NM and allies. · Ballot Measures Protecting Voting Rights o Michigan Proposal 2 (2022): Guaranteed early voting and drop boxes; supported by Voters Not Politicians and League of Women Voters of Michigan. o Arizona: Local advocates, including Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), defeated multiple voter suppression ballot initiatives. o Nevada: Voters passed automatic voter registration (2018) and expanded it further in 2022 with strong nonprofit support. Resources · Democracy & Equity: The Advocacy Playbook for Democracy and Voting Rights · Public Charities Can Lobby (Factsheet) · Practical Guidance: what your nonprofit needs to know about lobbying in your state · Investing in Change: A Funder's Guide to Supporting Advocacy · What is Advocacy? 2.0 · Seize the initiative
Thursday, June 5th, 2025Today, Judge Xinis grants a motion to unseal Abrego Garcia documents and grants his lawyers their motion to file for sanctions against Trump's stonewalling; economists are raising questions about the validity of US inflation data; the President has enacted 50% steel tariffs and then quickly TACOed them for the UK; a federal judge has tossed the Democratic Party lawsuit challenging Trump's FEC order; the Tennessee assistant district attorney has been charged with assaulting woman multiple times; a federal appeals court refuses to lift the block on mass layoffs at the Department of Education; young Democrat Kieshan Scott trounces his Republican opponent winning a South Carolina state house seat; South Korea's liberal party candidate won the snap election Tuesday; the Trump administration rescinds the Biden era policy requiring hospitals to provide reproductive emergency health care; Kennedy center subscription sales fall 36% since Trump took over; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Today's show is brought to you by Whistleblower Aid: a non-profit created and run by whistleblowers who are the bulwark for the truth-tellers who step forward to save our republic. Support their work by visiting whistlebloweraid.org/beansThank You, PiqueGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeansMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueCheck out Dana's social media campaign highlighting LGBTQ+ heroes every day during Pride Month - Dana Goldberg (@dgcomedy.bsky.social)Guest: Miles TaylorEnd Presidential Revenge .orgMiles Taylor (@MilesTaylorUSA) / TwitterReadBlowback Miles Taylor | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster StoriesEconomists Raise Questions About Quality of U.S. Inflation Data | The Wall Street JournalUK temporarily spared from Trump's 50% steel tariffs | BBCTrump administration rescinds policy requiring emergency abortion care | The Washington PostJudge tosses Democratic Party challenge to Trump order's impact on FEC | POLITICOTennessee assistant district attorney charged with assaulting woman multiple times | FOX 17 WZTV NashvilleFederal appeals court refuses to lift ruling halting mass layoffs at Department of Education | CNN PoliticsLiberal Lee Jae-myung wins South Korea presidency in martial law 'judgement day' | ReutersKennedy Center subscription sales fall 36 percent from previous year | The Washington PostGood TroubleYou can Join red wine and blue to learn how to effectively build local support in your community and the tactics you can use for success at Red Wine & BlueProton Mail: free email account with privacy and encryptionFind Upcoming Demonstrations And ActionsSat June 14 10am – 12pm PDT AG is hosting NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San DiegoDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovement250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Grand Military Parade and CelebrationSchedule F comments deadline extended to June 7th Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFrom The Good NewsHegseth orders Navy strip oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk of nameSSA.govPot Smoking Atheists Who Love Dogs Facebook Group (updated)Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good Trouble Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts
In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.
In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.
4.18.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump lawlessness, DOGE/DOJ target non-profit, Sen. Van Hollen returns, MLK struggles in the North We haven't made it to the first 100 days, and the twice-impeached, criminally convicted felon-in-chief, Donald "The Con" Trump, has unleashing lawlessness. Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, will explain that although Trump's tactics aren't new, they can be stopped. According to the nonprofit organization Vera Institute, it was targeted by Trump's DOJ and DOGE, setting a troubling precedent for targeting nonprofits that receive federal funding. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen just returned from El Salvador, where he finally met Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the father who was wrongfully deported. And I spoke with Jeanne Theoharis about her new book, "King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South." The book focuses on how King's experiences outside the South significantly influenced his campaign for racial justice. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
4.18.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump lawlessness, DOGE/DOJ target non-profit, Sen. Van Hollen returns, MLK struggles in the North We haven't made it to the first 100 days, and the twice-impeached, criminally convicted felon-in-chief, Donald "The Con" Trump, has unleashing lawlessness. Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, will explain that although Trump's tactics aren't new, they can be stopped. According to the nonprofit organization Vera Institute, it was targeted by Trump's DOJ and DOGE, setting a troubling precedent for targeting nonprofits that receive federal funding. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen just returned from El Salvador, where he finally met Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the father who was wrongfully deported. And I spoke with Jeanne Theoharis about her new book, "King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South." The book focuses on how King's experiences outside the South significantly influenced his campaign for racial justice. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Lawsuits are mounting against the Trump Administration, with the NAACP and Legal Defense Fund challenging efforts to end DEI programs in public schools. The case argues that civil rights laws are being misinterpreted, while critics say the public's lack of critical thinking is being exploited. With early wins, the Administration may have the Supreme Court on its side.
On this week's episode of 'The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart': Scare Tactic. The Trump Administration is now going after law firms that challenge the President's agenda in court. Janai Nelson of the Legal Defense Fund will tell me how attorneys are responding and why this is a troubling escalation in a very troubling Trump pattern. Standing Firm. Despite criticism from fellow Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says he's not going anywhere while vowing to make Donald Trump the "quickest lame duck in modern history." Former Senators Doug Jones and Debbie Stabenow will tell me how Democrats can make that happen. And the Unthinkable. Five years after the police murder of George Floyd, some right-wing extremists are pushing for a pardon for his killer, Derek Chauvin. Floyd's girlfriend, Courteney Ross, joins me with reaction to this attempt to rewrite history. All that and more on “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart.”
This episode of Justice Above All discusses voter challenges and voter turnout ahead of the November 5, 2024 election. Our guests explain how voter intimidation and voter suppression tactics continue to pose systemic barriers to Black voters. Even while this is occurring, Black voices are not being completely silenced: organizers are building Black political power in the South and celebrating major wins. Ahead of the November 2024 election, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) won two lawsuits which resulted in new, majority-Black congressional districts being created in Alabama and Louisiana. As a result, Black voters succeeded in electing three candidates of their choice to represent them in the House of Representatives (Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell in Alabama and Cleo Fields in Louisiana). Alabama and Louisiana are just two examples of places that illustrate the occurrence of some of the myriad forms of voter suppression tactics, as well as the effectiveness of voter advocacy in empowering Black voters to enact their right to vote. For more information on this episode, please visit: tminstituteldf.org/justice-above-all. This episode was hosted by Dr. Kesha Moore and produced by Jakiyah Bradley. Resonate Recordings edited the episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on X (formerly Twitter) at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on X (formerly Twitter) at @tmi_ldf. To keep up with the latest research from the Thurgood Marshall Institute, including our recent report, Attack on our Power and Dignity: What Project 2025 Means for Black Communities, visit our website at https://tminstituteldf.org/what-project-2025-means-for-black-communities/. You can also learn more about the Legal Defense Fund's Black Voters on the Rise team at voting.naacpldf.org.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.
On this week's episode of 'The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart': Cliffhanger. Congress is set to vote this week on Speaker Johnson's short-term funding bill with just days to go before a possible government shutdown. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, will tell me if Democrats will stand firm in their opposition and I'll also get his reaction to President Trump today refusing to rule out the possibility of a recession. Bloody Sunday. 60 years after the Selma marches that ushered in true American democracy, I'll talk with former Rep. Donna Edwards and Janai Nelson of the Legal Defense Fund about the state of civil rights today and Trump's assault on diversity. And Bad Science. The CDC plans to investigate a possible link between autism and vaccines, even though that theory has been debunked many times. Dr. Ashish Jha weighs in on that and new concerns over a measles outbreak. All that and more on “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart.”
Imani Brooks, Policy Fellow with Legal Defense Fund, joins the podcast this month to give us an overview on State Voting Rights Acts (SVRAs) across the country. She and Chris discuss what SVRAs do, how to build a strong SVRA, and what you can do to help pass one in your state. Resources mentioned in this episode: - New York AG's office SVRA landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/resources/organizations/new-york-voting-rights-act - Legal Defense Fund (LDF) SVRA landing page: https://www.naacpldf.org/state-voting-rights-protect-democracy/ - LDF + Center for American Progress explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUUG_fqycHs - Brennan Center State Voting Laws: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/voting-reform/state-voting-laws - Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund voting rights page: https://www.aaldef.org/programs/voting-rights/ - Latino Justice voting rights page: https://www.latinojustice.org/en/voting-rights - Campaign Legal Center SVRAs page: https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/strengthening-democracy-through-state-voting-rights-acts-state-vras - Harvard Election Law Clinic: https://hls.harvard.edu/clinics/in-house-clinics/election-law-clinic/ - LDF SVRA Polling Key Findings Memo: https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-01-16-Key-Findings-Memo4.pdf - Democracy Diminished: State and Local Threats to Voting Post-Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (Shelby County): https://tminstituteldf.org/publications/democracy-diminished/ - What Project 2025 Means for Black Communities: Voting Rights and Black Political Power: https://tminstituteldf.org/threats-to-voting-rights-project-2025/
2.21.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Black man shot riding ATV, Trump and Maine Gov clash, Citigroup DEI rollback, Will Packer's new book A white man in Florida is facing murder charges for shooting a black man riding an ATV. The convict-in-chief and Maine's governor clashed at the White House over an executive order preventing transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports. We will speak with an attorney from the Legal Defense Fund who is challenging three of Trump's executive orders that threaten civil rights and the ability of organizations to provide essential social and health services. And movie producer Will Packer dropped his new project this week. I talked to him about his book, "Who Better Than You? "The Art of Healthy Arrogance and Dreaming Big. You don't want to miss that conversation. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal have filed a federal lawsuit challenging three executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that ban diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs—even alleging the policies effectively erase transgender people from federal protections. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, argues that the orders will severely restrict the organizations' ability to provide essential services, including HIV treatment, fair housing, and job training. Critics warn the policies could reverse decades of civil rights progress, putting vulnerable communities at risk. Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, called the measures “discriminatory at best and an attempt at institutionalized economic oppression.” The lawsuit also claims that the executive orders violate constitutional rights by chilling free speech and limiting efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On July 17th, 1944 the worst home front disaster of WWII unfolded in an instant when a munitions base exploded with the force of 5,000 lbs of TNT just outside of San Fransisco. The catastrophic incident killed 320 people instantly and injured hundreds more. The event resulted in the largest mutiny trial in US Naval History and raised awareness of racial injustice and unsafe working conditions during the war and became a critical event in the Civil Rights Movement. For the latest NPAD updates, group travel details, merch and more, follow us on npadpodcast.com and our socials at: Instagram: @nationalparkafterdark Twitter/X: @npadpodcast TikTok: @nationalparkafterdark Support the show by becoming an Outsider and receive ad free listening, bonus content and more on Patreon or Apple Podcasts. Want to see our faces? Catch full episodes on our YouTube Page! Thank you to the week's partners! BetterHelp: National Park After Dark is sponsored by BetterHelp. Get 10% off. Prose: Use our link for a free in-depth hair consultation and 50% off your first subscription order. Rocket Money: Use our link to get started saving. IQBAR: Text PARK to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products and free shipping. For a full list of our sources, visit npadpodcast.com/episodes Sources: NPS, The National WWII Museum, CBS, US Naval Institute, NPS (2), Naval History and Heritage Command, NPS – Golden Gate Cemetery , CBS News, Legal Defense Fund
11.21.2024 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump's Picks & The Black Community, Matt Gaetz Withdraws, Jussie Smollett Conviction Overturned With every Trump administration appointment, we are seeing Project 2025 taking shape. Janai Nelson, the president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, is here to explain how Trump's picks may impact the Black community. Matt Gaetz couldn't take the heat! He withdrew from his nomination to become the next attorney general. We'll share the audio of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comparing Trump to Hitler and calling Trump supporters "belligerent idiots' and "outright Nazis." The Illinois Supreme Court overturns Jussie Smollett's conviction in his hoax attack. The Justice Department says the Trenton, New Jersey, police department has a pattern of misconduct. In Georgia, a former cop who shot an unarmed black man wants a judge to throw out his murder charges. The president of Atlanta's NAACP will give us an update on the Jimmy Atchinson murder case. A Texas Jury awards nearly $100 Million to the Family of a black man killed by a former Dallas police officer.#BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (link) and Risks (link) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox
With votes still being counted in the US election, the race isn't over. Both the Harris and Trump camps are preparing for possible legal battles, from ballot certification issues to potential cases before the Supreme Court. Americans have cast their votes – will the legal system ensure every ballot is counted? In this episode: Amir Badat (@AmirBadat), Manager of Black Voters on the Rise and Special Counsel at Legal Defense Fund, NAACP Episode credits: This episode was produced by Amy Walters, Sonia Bhagat, Sarí el-Khalili with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Duha Mosaad, Hagir Saleh, Cole van Miltenburg, and our host, Malika Bilal. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editor is Hisham Abu Salah. Alexandra Locke is The Take's executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Threads and YouTube
Legal Defense Fund for Jerusalem Armenians: https://givebutter.com/ArmenianQuarter?s=d1eAoyJeremy Loffredo's report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIv6x8ElT4o&t=375sFollow Kegham on X: https://x.com/kbalian90Follow Save the ArQ: https://x.com/SavetheArQ
Jason Johnson, President, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund | 6-12-24See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
4.12.2024 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Ala. Town Sued For Not Having Elections,Remembering OJ Simpson,Discussing Sex with Dr. Rachael Ross A small Alabama town is being sued after white officials refused for three years to allow its first Black mayor to exercise his mayoral duties. We'll be joined by one of the attorneys from the Legal Defense Fund who filed a preliminary injunction to force Newbern, a town of about 133 people, to hold elections and allow its citizens to vote for the first time in years. The OJ Simpson murder trial will always be a trial people will talk about. Tonight, Carl Douglas, who was on the defense team led by Johnnie Cochran, will tell us what it was like defending the pro football hall of famer. And Dr. Rachael Ross will be in the studio to discuss sexual health. #BlackStarNetwork partners:Fanbase
3.28.2024 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Haiti's Crisis, Tenn. GOP Votes To Vacate TSU's Trustee Board, SC. Congressional Maps HBCU All-Stars #BlackStarNetwork partners:Fanbase
1.17.2024 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Battle for LA's 2nd Majority-Black Congressional Dist., MD Principal's Alleged Racist Remarks The battle over Lousiaina's second majority-black congressional district continues after the state legislature reneges on a bipartisan agreement on the proposed congressional maps. Louisiana State Representative Candace Newell and Jared Evans from the Legal Defense Fund are here to update us on the case and what can be expected during next week's special session. Baltimore County, Maryland, Public Schools principal is allegedly recorded making derogatory remarks about staff, Black students, and Jewish families. According to findings from the Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll, Americans have a surprising degree of overall satisfaction with their economic situation. We'll talk to an economist about the survey's findings. Patriot Bank agrees to settlement with the Department of Justice over race-based lending allegations in Tennessee. Vice President Kamala Harris was on The View today, discussing why they should get a second term in the White House. She also responds to Nikki Haley, saying America has never been a racist country. Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the very weak financial report filed by Donald Trump's legal defense fund showing very little money raised and money being spent on Mar-A-Lago banquets. Go to https://PrizePicks.com/meidas and use code meidas for a first deposit match up to $100! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Host Reed Galen is joined by Imran Ahmed, the Founder and CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). They discuss the landscape of online hate and how it has exponentially grown in the last decade, the role of social media in the dangerous rise of misinformation/disinformation, and why it is so important for the fabric of our society to hold social media companies accountable for their actions. Plus, the latest in CCDH's lawsuit with Elon Musk and Twitter. For more on this, be sure to check out the work of Imran Ahmed and CCDH…especially the Deadly By Design Report mentioned in this episode and more information on CCDH's Legal Defense Fund. If you'd like to connect with The Lincoln Project, send an email to podcast@lincolnproject.us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
