Podcast appearances and mentions of Merrick B Garland

FIRE staffers take your questions on the TikTok ban, mandatory DEI statements, the Kids Online Safety Act, Trump vs. the media, and more. Joining us: Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy Will Creeley, legal director This webinar was open to the public. Future monthly FIRE Member Webinars will not be. Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations to future live webinars. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 00:52 Donate to FIRE! 02:49 TikTok ban 10:01 Ari's work as tech policy lead counsel 12:03 Mandatory DEI statements at universities 15:19 How does FIRE address forced speech? 18:17 Texas' age verification law 24:35 Would government social media bans for minors be a First Amendment violation? 33:48 Online age verification 35:17 First Amendment violations while making public comments during city council/school board public meetings 37:25: Edison, New Jersey city council case 39:48 FIRE's role in educating Americans 41:55 If social media addiction cannot be dealt with like drugs, how can it be dealt with? 43:34 “Pessimists Archive” Substack and moral panics 45:27 Trump and the media 51:23 Gary Gadwa case 52:49 How to distinguish the freedom of speech versus freedom from social consequences? 55:53 Free speech culture is a “mushy concept” 57:58 ABC settlement with Trump 01:01:27 Nico's upcoming book! 01:02:32 FIRE and K-12 education 01:04:40 Outro Show notes: “TikTok Inc. and ByteDance LTD. v. Merrick B. Garland, in his official capacity as attorney general of the United States” (D.C. 2024) “Opinion: The TikTok court case has staggering implications for free speech in America” L.A. Times (2024) H.B. No. 1181 (Tex. 2023; Texas age-verification law) “The Anxious Generation” Jonathan Haidt (2024) S. 1409 - Kids Online Safety Act (2023-2024) American Amusement MacH. Ass'n v. Kendrick (Ind. 2000) “Edison Township, New Jersey: Town Council bans props, including the U.S. flag and Constitution, at council meetings” FIRE (2024) “LAWSUIT: Arizona mom sues city after arrest for criticizing government lawyer's pay” FIRE (2024) "President Donald J. Trump v. J. Ann Selzer, Selzer & Company, Des Moines Register and Tribune company, and Gannett Co., Inc.” (2024) “Trump v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.” (2024) “New Jersey slaps down censorship with anti-SLAPP legislation” FIRE (2023) “FIRE defends Idaho conservation officer sued for criticizing wealthy ranch owner's airstrip permit” FIRE (2023) “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill (1859) “Home Depot cashier fired over Facebook comment about Trump shooting” Newsweek (2024) “Free speech culture, Elon Musk, and Twitter” FIRE (2022) “Questions ABC News should answer following the $16 million Trump settlement” Columbia Journalism Review (2024) “Appellants' opening brief — B.A., et al. v. Tri County Area Schools, et al.” FIRE (2024) Transcript: *Unedited transcript and edited transcript for Substack will be available later in the week!

Cristian Torres v. Merrick B. Garland

Fermin Estrada-Ramos v. Merrick B. Garland

Eulalia Mateo-Mateo v. Merrick B. Garland

Licely Cardona-Ramirez v. Merrick B. Garland

Pilar Sandoval Reynoso v. Merrick B. Garland

Maria Reynoso-Salgado v. Merrick B. Garland

Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Merrick B. Garland

Nyynkpao Banyee v. Merrick B. Garland

Simon Quito-Guachichulca v. Merrick B. Garland

Nguyen Huynh v. Merrick B. Garland

Peter Davis v. Merrick B. Garland

Loing Yar v. Merrick B. Garland

Denia Alfaro-Bonilla v. Merrick B. Garland

Miguel Pascual-Miguel v. Merrick B. Garland

Josefina Bustos-Millan v. Merrick B. Garland

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 01/11/2023

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 01/10/2023

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 12/13/2022

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 10/18/2022

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 09/22/2022

Hector Gonzalez-Rivas v. Merrick B. Garland

Javier Mejia v. Merrick B. Garland

•Actualización de cifras covid •Más información en nuestro podcast

Jose Davila v. Merrick B. Garland

Maria Simon-Antonio v. Merrick B. Garland

Maria Simon-Antonio v. Merrick B. Garland

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 05/11/2022

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 05/11/2022

Jose Llanas-Trejo v. Merrick B. Garland

The stakes for Supreme Court nominations have always been high. But starting in 2016, when Senate Republicans refused to consider the nomination of Merrick B. Garland, the high court confirmation process has been defined by deep partisan rifts, accusations of unfairness and hypocrisy and hard feelings. With that kind of background, what might Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson expect in her upcoming confirmation hearing? CQ Roll Call Senior Writer Todd Ruger discusses the topic with Political Theater host Jason Dick.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The stakes for Supreme Court nominations have always been high. But starting in 2016, when Senate Republicans refused to consider the nomination of Merrick B. Garland, the high court confirmation process has been defined by deep partisan rifts, accusations of unfairness and hypocrisy and hard feelings. With that kind of background, what might Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson expect in her upcoming confirmation hearing? CQ Roll Call Senior Writer Todd Ruger discusses the topic with Political Theater host Jason Dick.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 03/16/2022

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) whether, under 8 U. S. C. § 1252(f)(1), the courts below had jurisdiction to grant classwide injunctive relief.Date                    Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Sep 04 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 13, 2020)Sep 22 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 13, 2020 to December 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Sep 24 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2020.Oct 13 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.Dec 08 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 14, 2020 to January 13, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Dec 10 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; time is extended to and including December 16, 2020.Dec 16 2020 | Brief of respondents Esteban A. Gonzalez, et al. in opposition filed.Dec 21 2020 | Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed.Dec 23 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Jul 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021.Aug 23 2021 | Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether, under 8 U. S. C. § 1252(f)(1), the courts below had jurisdiction to grant classwide injunctive relief.Sep 28 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Oct 01 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 14, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 22, 2021.Oct 06 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al.Oct 14 2021 | Brief of petitioners Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. filed.Oct 18 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.Oct 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.Nov 17 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, January 11, 2022.Nov 17 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.Nov 17 2021 | the record from the 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Nov 22 2021 | Brief of respondents Esteban A. Gonzalez, et al. filed.Nov 24 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Asian-Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, et al. filed (also in 19-896). VIDED.Nov 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Retired Federal Judges filed.Nov 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members filed (also in 19-896). VIDED.Nov 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.Nov 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed (also in 19-896). VIDED.Dec 08 2021 | CIRCULATEDDec 22 2021 | Reply of petitioners Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jan 11 2022 | Argued. For petitioners: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Matthew H. Adams, Seattle, Wash.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 12/15/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 12/13/2021

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.Date                  Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 15 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2021)Jan 15 2021 | Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filng system.Feb 11 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 22, 2021 to March 24, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Feb 12 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 24, 2021.Mar 17 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 24, 2021 to April 23, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Mar 18 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 23, 2021.Apr 15 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 23, 2021 to May 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Apr 16 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 17, 2021.May 17 2021 | Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General filed.May 28 2021 | Reply of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jun 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.Jun 21 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.Jun 28 2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.Jun 28 2021 | As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.Jun 29 2021 | Taylor A.R. Meehan, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.Jul 13 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al.Jul 20 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jul 28 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and the petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 31, 2021. The time to file the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below is extended to and including October 19, 2021.Aug 23 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Aug 31 2021 | Brief of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed.Aug 31 2021 | Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General in support filed.Sep 03 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Office for Immigration Review Judges filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Immigration Litigation Alliance filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The American Immigration Council, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 6, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.Sep 28 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer, also the record has been received and has been electronically filed.Oct 19 2021 | Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.Oct 26 2021 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General.Oct 29 2021 | CIRCULATEDNov 08 2021 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.Nov 15 2021 | Record received from the 11th Circuit. The record is Sealed and filed electronically.Nov 18 2021 | Reply of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)Nov 18 2021 | Reply of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 11/19/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 11/17/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 11/17/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 10/21/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 10/20/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 10/20/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 10/19/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 10/19/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 09/24/2021

The statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland did not directly challenge a new Texas law that banned nearly all abortions in the state. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 06/16/2021

In this sample from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet and Joyce break down the news that DOJ prosecutors investigating leaks during the Trump administration subpoenaed Apple for data from Democratic Congressmen Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell.  In the full episode, they discuss former White House counsel Don McGahn's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, and DOJ's new strategy to protect the right to vote. To listen to the full episode and get access to all exclusive CAFE Insider content, including audio notes from Preet, Joyce, Elie Honig, Barb McQuade, Asha Rangappa, Melissa Murray, and more try the membership free for two weeks: www.cafe.com/insider Use special code JOYCE for 50% off on the annual membership price.  Sign up to receive the free weekly CAFE Brief newsletter: www.cafe.com/brief This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Tamara Sepper – Executive Producer; Adam Waller – Senior Editorial Producer; Matthew Billy – Audio Producer; Sam Ozer-Staton & Jake Kaplan – Editorial Producers REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:  Subscribe to Now & Then, hosted by historians Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman: Apple Podcasts, Spotify “Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland,” DOJ press release, 6/14/21 “DOJ OIG Initiates a Review of the Department of Justice's Use of Subpoenas and Other Legal Authorities to Obtain Communication Records of Members of Congress and Affiliated Persons, and the News Media,” DOJ OIG press release, 6/11/21 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 05/13/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 04/15/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 04/15/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 04/14/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 04/14/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 04/13/2021

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 04/13/2021

Five years ago, Judge Merrick B. Garland became a high-profile casualty of Washington’s political dysfunction. President Barack Obama selected him to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans blocked his nomination. In the process, Mr. Garland became known for the job he didn’t get.Now, after being nominated by the Biden administration to become the next attorney general, Mr. Garland is finding professional qualifications under scrutiny once again. In light of the attack on the Capitol, we explore how his career leading investigations into domestic terrorism prepared him for his Senate confirmation hearing.Guest: Mark Leibovich, the chief national correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, who spoke with Judge Merrick B. Garland.Sign up here to get The Daily in your inbox each morning. And for an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Background reading: In his confirmation hearing this week, Mr. Garland said the United States now faced “a more dangerous period” from domestic extremists than at the time of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.Here’s why Mr. Garland described his experience leading the Justice Department’s investigation into the 1995 bombing as “the most important thing I have ever done in my life.”For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

Josh and Will welcome back our resident Constitutional expert, Professor Eric Berger (See Bio below), to talk about the second impeachment of former President Trump.  The conversation starts off with the constitutionality of impeaching a former officeholder and how this isn't as unprecedented as you might think. Then they discuss the different interpretations of the law that might inform the proceedings, including the absence of Chief Justice Roberts presiding over the trial. Professor Berger then explains what Section 3, of the 14th Amendment is and how it might be applied, as well as,  the legal risks it poses for the ex-President. The conversation then switches gears so Will could ask Professor Berger some questions about the expansion of the Supreme Court and get his take on the nomination of Merrick Garland as Attorney General. Episode NotesHouse Impeachment Brief:https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_trial_brief_final.pdfPresident Trump's Defense Brief:https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-brief-defense-impeachment/bd873567d385cdcc/full.pdfBiden administration has developed a Commission to study reforms to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/biden-supreme-court-reform-463126. Biden nomination of Merrick Garland as Attorney General:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/merrick-garland-attorney-general.htmlProfessor Eric Berger Bio:Professor Eric Berger joined the Nebraska College of Law faculty in 2007. He received his B.A. with Honors in History from Brown University, and his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a Kent Scholar and an Articles Editor on the Columbia Law Review. After law school, Professor Berger clerked for the Honorable Merrick B. Garland on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He then practiced in Jenner & Block's Washington, D.C. office, where he worked on litigation in several state and federal trial and appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Professor Berger's matters there included cases involving lethal injection, same-sex marriage, the detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay, and internet obscenity.Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/faithpolitics)

Constitutional Law Professor, Dr. Eric Berger joins Josh and Will on this week's episode of Faithful Politics. They discuss a wide range of topics ranging from Professor Berger's time clerking for Merrick Garland to the election and what role the Supreme Court may play. It was a very informative conversation that I think you will enjoy and hope you learn something from. References used in the podcast: "No to a constitutional convention", by Eric BergerSenate Republicans offer constitutional amendment to block Supreme Court PackingHouse Democrats to introduce new bill for Supreme Court term limitsProfessor Eric Berger Bio:Professor Eric Berger joined the faculty of Nebraska College of Law in 2007. He received his B.A. with Honors in History from Brown University, and his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a Kent Scholar and an Articles Editor on the Columbia Law Review. After law school, Professor Berger clerked for the Honorable Merrick B. Garland on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He then practiced in Jenner & Block's Washington, D.C. office, where he worked on litigation in several state and federal trial and appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Professor Berger's matters there included cases involving lethal injection, same-sex marriage, the detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay, and internet obscenity.Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/faithpolitics)

Prosecutor, professor, and proven criminal justice reformer, Tali Farhadian Weinstein, is Mark’s guest on the podcast today. Tali came to America as a refugee in 1979, having fled the violence and ant-Semitism of revolutionary Iran, and went on to earn degrees from Yale College, Oxford University where she was a Rhodes Scholar, and Yale Law School. She has served as a Law Clerk for Judge Merrick B. Garland at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, at the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and most recently as the General Counsel of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office. She has taught immigration law and policy at Columbia Law School, is currently Adjunct Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Clinical Law at NYU Law School, and is also running for the position of Manhattan District Attorney, for which she has the full support of the Rabbi’s Husband. Tali has chosen the Talmudic text, Bava Metzia 30b, to discuss with Mark today. Tali begins by sharing her summary of the selected text, the meaning it holds for her, and the rhythm and surprise that she finds within it. Together, she and Mark analyze the notion of going beyond or inside the letter of the law, as well as their differing readings of the text. This leads them to explore the learning and use of prosecutorial discretion, the lessons to be learned through visiting jails and prisons, and the human capacity for change. Tali draws their conversation to a close by recounting the lessons she has learned about mankind, and how they relate directly back to today’s selected text. Tali’s vast experience as a prosecutor and a professor combine strikingly here today as she shares her remarkable insights while drawing out both the questions and lessons inherent to this ‘awesome rabbinic passage’, and their very real and highly impactful application in our world today. Quotes: “They upheld the law rather than doing this thing of going beyond it or inside of it.” “The passage you chose says we’re following Torah laws, therefore the worst thing happened.” “This is my life’s work…to practice law enforcement in a way that is fair and just which is what I think this Talmudic text is trying to nudge us toward understanding.” “Maybe what it means to go inside or beyond the letter of the law is to bring the learning from those acts of meeting people at their most vulnerable into law enforcement. And maybe that’s the source of knowing…when to pursue, when not to pursue - how to indict a case not just based on the facts but on your sense of justice.” “There’s no way that even the author of the Torah, which is the greatest book ever written beyond compare, could anticipate every circumstance where law would have to be applied.” “In the best interpretation of your tradition, develop your character…and in so doing, you will learn when and how to exercise prosecutorial discretion, among many other things.” “I’m making a point about what happens in these acts, and in these human encounters of the kind that our text is urging us to make before we get into the business of law enforcement.” “There’s a whole other way of learning that is demanded of us.” “Study leads to action.” “None of us should be defined by the very worst thing that we’ve done, or the very worst thing that we’ve experienced.” “I’ve learned about people’s capacity for change and for complexity, and I believe in that very much.” “New York needs you and wants you.” Bava Metzia 30b - https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.30b?lang=bi Links: The Rabbi’s Husband homepage: http://therabbishusband.com/ Mark’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/markgerson?lang=en

Justin Driver is Professor of Law at Yale Law School. He teaches and writes in the area of constitutional law and is the author of The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind. The book was selected as a Washington Post Notable Book of the Year, an Editors’ Choice of the New York Times Book Review, and received an honorable mention, Silver Gavel Award, American Bar Association, 2019.  The Washington Postcalled The Schoolhouse Gate “masterful,” and the New York Times called it “indispensable.” Driver is a graduate of Brown, Oxford (where he was a Marshall Scholar), Duke (where he received certification to teach public school), and Harvard Law School (where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review). After graduating from Harvard, Driver clerked for Judge Merrick B. Garland, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

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

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

Rubio has ended his efforts to become the Republican nominee for POTUS. Obama has nominated Judge Merrick B. Garland for the SCOTUS. Has anything changed? Let's talk about it.

Rubio has ended his efforts to become the Republican nominee for POTUS. Obama has nominated Judge Merrick B. Garland for the SCOTUS. Has anything changed? Let's talk about it.