Podcast appearances and mentions of margo schlanger

This Day in Legal History: Second Bank of the United States VetoedOn July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed legislation that would have renewed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, setting off a fierce political and constitutional conflict known as the “Bank War.” The Bank, originally chartered in 1816, acted as a quasi-governmental financial institution and played a central role in stabilizing the U.S. economy. Jackson, however, saw the Bank as a symbol of entrenched privilege and a threat to democratic values. In his veto message, he argued that the Bank was unconstitutional—even though the Supreme Court had previously upheld its legitimacy in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)—and that it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a wealthy elite.Jackson framed his opposition as a defense of the common man against corporate monopoly. His veto marked a dramatic assertion of presidential power, expanding the scope of the executive's role in legislative review. By directly challenging a long-standing institution supported by Congress and the courts, Jackson redefined the balance between branches of government. His veto was also politically strategic, rallying populist support ahead of the 1832 presidential election, which he would go on to win decisively.The fallout was immense: Jackson's administration began withdrawing federal funds from the Bank and redistributing them to selected state banks, derogatorily termed “pet banks.” This redistribution triggered economic instability and helped contribute to the Panic of 1837. Despite intense opposition from figures like Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, Jackson remained steadfast, and the Bank's federal charter ultimately expired in 1836.The legal significance of this event lies in its reimagining of the veto as a political, not merely constitutional, tool. Jackson's interpretation of the Constitution, driven by populist ideals rather than judicial precedent, established a precedent for a more active and independent executive.A federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, is set to hear arguments on whether to block President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, despite a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is asking the court to grant class-action status to a lawsuit aimed at protecting U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. If class status is granted, it could enable a nationwide block on the policy through the class action mechanism—something the Supreme Court ruling left open as an exception to its injunction restrictions.Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office in January, would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or green card holder. The Supreme Court previously narrowed three injunctions against the order, but did not rule on its constitutionality. Opponents argue the order violates the 14th Amendment and contradicts the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that birthright citizenship applies regardless of a parent's immigration status.Judge Laplante had already ruled in February that the policy was likely unconstitutional and issued a limited injunction affecting only certain advocacy groups. The ACLU is now urging him to expand this to a broader class of affected families, citing the risk of statelessness or undocumented status for tens of thousands of children. The Justice Department, meanwhile, claims the plaintiffs are too diverse to form a single legal class and that the suit bypasses proper legal procedures.Judge to weigh blocking Trump on birthright citizenship despite Supreme Court ruling | ReutersThe Trump administration escalated its standoff with Harvard University by threatening its accreditation and subpoenaing records related to international students. Federal officials claimed Harvard may have violated anti-discrimination laws by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students, citing a Title VI investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services. As a result, the Education and Health Departments formally notified Harvard's accrediting body that the university might not meet its standards. However, the accreditor clarified it operates independently and typically allows schools up to four years to come into compliance.Simultaneously, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to issue subpoenas targeting potential "criminality and misconduct" among student visa holders at Harvard. These actions follow previous federal efforts to block Harvard from admitting international students and to freeze billions in grants, which the university is currently challenging in court. A judge had already halted Trump's proclamation barring foreign students, though the administration is appealing that ruling.Trump accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and "woke" ideology, while the university insists the administration's actions are politically motivated retaliation infringing on its First Amendment rights. Nearly 6,800 international students—about 27% of Harvard's student body—could be affected if the administration succeeds in stripping the university of its ability to host them. A separate lawsuit seeking to unfreeze $2.5 billion in grants is set to be heard on July 21.Trump administration threatens Harvard's accreditation, seeks records on foreign students | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it will no longer consider a farmer's race or sex when administering many of its key programs, including those related to loans, commodities, and conservation. The decision follows directives from the Trump administration aimed at rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies. According to the USDA, the shift reflects its belief that past discrimination has been sufficiently addressed and that programs should now focus solely on merit and fairness.The final rule, signed by the USDA's acting General Counsel, states that race- or sex-based criteria will no longer influence program eligibility or funding decisions, though some advantages remain for beginning and military veteran farmers. For decades, the agency had designated certain groups—such as women and farmers of color—as "socially disadvantaged," often creating set-asides or prioritizations for them. This latest move effectively ends that practice.Critics argue the change undermines transparency and accessibility for farmers of color who have historically faced systemic exclusion. Legal scholar Margo Schlanger, formerly involved in USDA civil rights work, said the rule shuts off a vital avenue for ensuring equitable access to federal support. The decision comes despite the fact that only about 4.5% of U.S. farmers identify as nonwhite or multiracial, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture.US agriculture agency to end consideration of race, sex in many farm programs | ReutersThe Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that the state's animal welfare laws concerning egg and poultry farming unlawfully raise egg prices nationwide and violate federal law. The complaint, brought in federal court in Los Angeles, claims that California's regulations conflict with the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970, which mandates national uniformity in egg safety standards. The federal government asserts that only it has the authority to regulate egg safety and that California's restrictions burden interstate commerce.California laws passed by voter initiatives in 2008 and 2018 prohibit confining hens so tightly that they cannot move freely. These measures were designed to reduce animal cruelty and prevent foodborne illness. However, the federal government argues that while California can regulate farms within its borders, it cannot impose its requirements on out-of-state producers selling eggs in California.This is not the first legal battle over the issue. In 2014, several states sued California on similar grounds and lost at both the district and appellate levels. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's 2018 animal welfare measure in a separate challenge from pig farmers in 2023, further solidifying the state's right to set agricultural standards for products sold within its borders.US government sues California over egg prices | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Trump's Escalating Trade War Against Canada Has the Business Roundtable He's Meeting With Nervous | Trump Tries to Deport a Student Protester With a Green Card He Labels as "Pro-Terrorist, Anti-Semitic and Anti-American | As Tesla Stock Plunges by 40%, the World's Richest Man is Beginning to Feel a Reversal of Fortune backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia bsky.app/profile/ianmastersmedia.bsky.social facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Each year millions of Americans face the reality of living with a mental illness. Since 1949, the United States has observed the month of May as Mental Health Awareness Month to raise awareness and educate the public about mental illnesses, the realities of living with these conditions, and strategies for attaining mental health and wellness. In this episode of Measured Justice, our hosts Erik Luna and Ashley Oddo are joined by Stephen Morse, the Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law, Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry, and Associate Director for the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; as well as Margo Schlanger, the Wade H. and Dores M. McCree Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, to discuss the effects of mental health on the criminal justice system. Our guests take a look at mental health while incarcerated including access to care, access to medications and the types of charges that can be attributed to mental health issues; the implications of solitary confinement on a prisoner's mental health; and the fact that prisoners with mental health issues are more likely to be incarcerated for a longer period of time and have a worse experience in incarceration than those without.

The Biden administration could pay out up to $1 billion to immigrant families that were separated at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Trump administration. According to The Wall Street Journal, the departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services could end up paying out close to $1 million per immigrant family that was separated at the border. Sources told the Journal that around $450,000 a person is being considered, but that figure could change depending on each family's circumstances. Discussions of payouts have taken place over the course of the past few months between lawyers representing immigrant families that are suing the federal government and the government's own lawyers, according to the Journal. Some government lawyers apparently viewed the payout amounts as excessive. Margo Schlanger, a Homeland Security officer for civil rights and civil liberties during the Obama administration, told the Journal, “Damage class actions in this kind of case are pretty rare, it's hard to think of a recent comparison.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing multiple families in a lawsuit over the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy. In January, it issued a statement urging the incoming Biden administration to act quickly on the issue. “The incoming administration must reunite the separated families in the United States, but we cannot stop there. These families deserve citizenship, resources, care, and a commitment that family separation will never happen again.” The Biden administration created the Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families, and its latest progress report, released in September, confirmed it had reunified 50 children separated from their parents and provided access to behavioral health services. Another 2,171 children have been reunified through a court order and from the efforts of nongovernmental organizations. However, the same report confirmed 1,727 children have not yet been reunified with their families, accounting for 33 percent of all those identified as separated from their parents by the Homeland Security Department under the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy. The ACLU is still battling its lawsuit with the Biden administration and according to the Journal, not all the families it's representing will be eligible for a potential financial settlement. The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the Justice Department's zero tolerance policy and found that under former attorney general Jeff Sessions, the agency “failed to effectively prepare for, or manage, the implementation of the zero tolerance policy.” http://globalreportage.org/2021/10/29/biden-administration-considering-giving-450000-per-person-to-immigrants-separated-at-the-border/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/global-reportage/support

In this episode, we speak with Professor Margo Schlanger, the Wade H. and Dores M. McCree Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. She is the lead author of a leading casebook, Incarceration and the Law (2020), which can be found at Incarcerationlaw.com. In the episode, we discuss prisoners rights in the time of COVID and Professor Schlanger's recent article in the Northwestern University Law Review (https://northwesternlawreview.org/issues/incrementalist-vs-maximalist-reform-solitary-confinement-case-studies/).

We talk to University of Michigan law professor Margo Schlanger about the barriers faced by prisoners with disabilities. We consider the need for prison reform given the overrepresentation of inmates with disabilites in US and Canadian prisons. This is the August 16, 2020 episode.

This episode addresses the state of prisoners and prisoner treatment during the Covid-19 pandemic. We have pulled in leaders in prisoner treatment standards and release litigation from across the nation to share their successes and challenges from their respective geographies. This episode we hear from Margo Schlanger in Michigan, Tina Luongo in NYC, Cynthia Orr of Texas and Jaime Hawk of Seattle.

On The Gist, John Hockenberry’s piece in Harper’s. Donald Trump is no stranger to settlements, and the latest of these come between his administration and hundreds of asylum-seekers. They were rejected after making their cases under the duress of being separated from their children … or their parents. “How are the kids supposed to say why they fear persecution? Try having that conversation with a 4-year-old,” says Margo Schlanger, who headed the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties under Obama. If approved by the court, the settlement would give the migrants a second chance to apply for asylum.  In the Spiel, impeachment.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On The Gist, John Hockenberry’s piece in Harper’s. Donald Trump is no stranger to settlements, and the latest of these come between his administration and hundreds of asylum-seekers. They were rejected after making their cases under the duress of being separated from their children … or their parents. “How are the kids supposed to say why they fear persecution? Try having that conversation with a 4-year-old,” says Margo Schlanger, who headed the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties under Obama. If approved by the court, the settlement would give the migrants a second chance to apply for asylum. In the Spiel, impeachment. This episode is brought to you by Slack, a workplace communication hub. Find out more at slack.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An interview with Margo Schlanger about her upcoming teach-out on civil rights. It's online and free, starting May 21. http://ai.umich.edu/teach-out/ https://www.clearinghouse.net diydemocracypodcast@gmail.com   Music by Evan Schaeffer

The Huffington Post released a scathing report revealing that 811 people — or more 2 people per day — have died while being held in an American jail since Sandra Bland’s death inside of the Waller County Jail in Texas one year ago. Unlike prisons, suicide is the leading cause of death in U.S. jails since people are sent there right after they’ve been arrested and are often angry, desperate or afraid. According to the report, they may also be intoxicated or have psychiatric conditions that are easily overlooked by police officers. We discussed this shocking report and solutions to decrease the fatality rate inside U.S. jails with Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School