Podcasts about Michigan Law Review

This Day in Legal History: JuneteenthOn this day in legal history, June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that all enslaved people in Texas were free. This day, now known as Juneteenth, marked the effective end of slavery in the United States—coming more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The delay was due in large part to the limited presence of Union troops in Texas to enforce the proclamation.Granger's announcement informed Texas residents that “all slaves are free,” a declaration that redefined the legal and social landscape of the state and solidified the federal government's authority over the Confederacy's last holdout. While the Emancipation Proclamation had declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, it did not immediately end slavery everywhere, nor did it provide enforcement mechanisms beyond Union military power. Juneteenth represents the day when emancipation finally reached the furthest corners of the Confederacy through legal and military authority.In the years following, Juneteenth became a symbol of African American freedom and resilience, celebrated with community gatherings, education, and reflection. Texas made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, the first state to do so. On June 17, 2021, it became a federal holiday when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law. The legal significance of Juneteenth lies in its embodiment of both the promise and the delay of justice, highlighting the gap between the law's proclamation and its realization.A conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has sued the Michigan Law Review and its affiliated leadership, claiming that its member selection process illegally favors women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ applicants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the complaint alleges that personal statements and holistic review metrics are evaluated using race and sex preferences, violating both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The group contends that conservative students, especially those associated with the Federalist Society, are excluded from review committees due to their presumed opposition to the practice.FASORP is backed by attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal, led by former Trump official Stephen Miller. The organization has brought similar legal challenges against NYU and Northwestern, and its suit aligns with broader attacks on diversity policies at elite institutions. It seeks an injunction, damages, and court oversight of a revised selection process for the journal, along with a halt to federal funding until changes are made.The group claims violations of Title VI and Title IX, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause. The review's five-part selection process—including essays and grades—has no fixed evaluation formula, which FASORP argues opens the door to discriminatory discretion. Judge Judith E. Levy is assigned to the case.Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection BiasA federal judge in Texas has struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its authority when it adopted the rule, which barred healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement. The decision halts enforcement of the rule nationwide.Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, argued that HHS lacked explicit congressional approval to implement heightened protections for procedures viewed as politically sensitive. The rule was introduced in 2024 following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, as part of the Biden administration's efforts to defend reproductive healthcare access.The lawsuit was brought by Texas physician Carmen Purl, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which claimed the rule misused privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity. Previously, Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked enforcement of the rule against Purl, but this week's decision broadens that to all states.HHS has not responded publicly to the ruling, and a separate legal challenge to the same rule remains active in another Texas federal court. The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal privacy regulations and state-level abortion restrictions in the post-Roe legal environment.US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions | ReutersXlear, a hygiene product company, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency's authority to require “substantiation” for product claims under its false advertising rules. The suit, filed in federal court in Utah, follows the FTC's recent decision to drop a case it had pursued since 2021, which alleged that Xlear falsely advertised its saline nasal spray as a COVID-19 prevention and treatment product.Xlear argues that the FTC is exceeding its legal mandate by demanding scientific backing for advertising claims, stating that the FTC Act does not explicitly authorize such a requirement. The company's legal team is leaning on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the deference courts must give to federal agencies when interpreting statutes—a significant departure from the longstanding Chevron doctrine.The company seeks a court ruling that merely making claims without substantiation does not violate FTC rules. Xlear has also criticized the agency for engaging in what it calls “vexatious litigation,” claiming it spent over $3 million defending itself before the FTC abandoned its lawsuit without explanation.The FTC has not yet commented or made a court appearance in this new case. The challenge could set important precedent on the scope of agency power over advertising standards in the wake of the Supreme Court's shift on judicial deference.Lawsuit challenges FTC authority over 'unsubstantiated' advertising claims | ReutersA federal judge in Rhode Island signaled skepticism toward the Trump administration's attempt to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. During a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell questioned whether U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had legal authority to impose immigration-related conditions on grants meant for infrastructure projects. McConnell, an Obama appointee, challenged the relevance of immigration enforcement to the Transportation Department's mission, drawing a parallel to whether the department could also withhold funds based on abortion laws.The case involves 20 Democratic-led states opposing the April 24 directive, which conditions billions in infrastructure grants on compliance with federal immigration law, including cooperation with ICE. The states argue the requirement is unconstitutional, vague, and attempts to coerce state governments into enforcing federal immigration policy without clear legislative authorization.Justice Department lawyers defended the policy as aligned with national safety concerns, but struggled under McConnell's probing. He noted that the administration's broad language and public stance on sanctuary jurisdictions could not be ignored and appeared to support the states' argument that the directive lacks clarity and statutory grounding.The judge is expected to issue a ruling by Friday, before the states' grant application deadline. This lawsuit is part of a broader legal and political battle as Trump pushes sanctuary cities and states to aid in mass deportations.US judge skeptical of Trump plan tying states' transportation funds to immigration | 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

Governor Newsom sued to enjoin President Trump's deployment of the National Guard to quell the ongoing LA riots without Newsom's consent. But first, we disclose our biases—about Trump, opportunistic political labeling of “rebellions” or “insurrections,” and how easily the thin veneer of civilization is pierced by masked cowards throwing rocks.Also:Beach yoga is free speech, says the Ninth Circuit striking down San Diego's ban.A study on televised oral arguments reveals that camera angles—and flags—can change the court's perception with the public as “legitimate.”Lawyers must comply with the evidence code—but the court can also consider mere “information.” We discuss why appellate courts seem so cavalier about the rules of evidence.“Citation modified” enters the Bluebook—but Tim and Jeff agree: “cleaned up” still reigns.Appellate fees ≠ judgment enforcement fees.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Is “evidence” different from “information”?The “(cleaned up)” origin story, with Jack MetzlerStudy on televising oral arguments and judicial legitimacyCALP cited in a law review about (cleaned up)! Craighead, Burke, The Bluebook: An Insider's Perspective (May 12, 2025). Michigan Law Review, Volume 124 (forthcoming 2026), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5271305 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5271305.Judgment enforcement fees reminder: EDWARD H. BONIN, v. LINCOLN CHAYES et al., (D2d2, May 29, 2025, No. B340106) (non-pub. opn.)Not enough time for the CCP 128.5 21-day date harbor? Nothing prevents asking for a continuance of the underlying motion. JUNKERS2JEWELS, LLC, et al., v. LA-DORIS MCCLANEY, (Cal. Ct. App., May 28, 2025, No. B339900) (non-pub. opn.)

The Author Events Series presents Chris Hayes | The Sirens' Call REGISTER  In Conversation with Kate Shaw We all feel it--the distraction, the loss of focus, the addictive focus on the wrong things for too long. We bump into the zombies on their phones in the street, and sometimes they're us. We stare in pity at the four people at the table in the restaurant, all on their phones, and then we feel the buzz in our pocket. Something has changed utterly: for most of human history, the boundary between public and private has been clear, at least in theory. Now, as Chris Hayes writes, "With the help of a few tech firms, we basically tore it down in about a decade." Hayes argues that we are in the midst of an epoch-defining transition whose only parallel is what happened to labor in the nineteenth century: attention has become a commodified resource extracted from us, and from which we are increasingly alienated. The Sirens' Call is the big-picture vision we urgently need to offer clarity and guidance. Because there is a breaking point. Sirens are designed to compel us, and now they are going off in our bedrooms and kitchens at all hours of the day and night, doing the bidding of vast empires, the most valuable companies in history, built on harvesting human attention. As Hayes writes, "Now our deepest neurological structures, human evolutionary inheritances, and social impulses are in a habitat designed to prey upon, to cultivate, distort, or destroy that which most fundamentally makes us human." The Sirens' Call is the book that snaps everything into a single holistic framework so that we can wrest back control of our lives, our politics, and our future. Chris Hayes is the Emmy Award-winning host of All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC and the New York Times bestselling author of A Colony in a Nation and Twilight of the Elites. He lives in Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and children. Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where she teaches and writes about the presidency, the law of democracy, the Supreme Court, and reproductive rights and justice. Her scholarly writing has appeared, among other places, in the Harvard Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Northwestern University Law Review, and her popular writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic. She co-hosts the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny and is a Contributing Opinion Writer with the New York Times. The 2024/25 Author Events Series is presented by Comcast. Because you love Author Events, please make a donation when you register for this event to ensure that this series continues to inspire Philadelphians. Extra copies of the books will be available for purchase at the library on event night. All tickets are non-refundable. (recorded 3/3/2025)

Congress, worried that TikTok may be unduly subject to Chinese government control, passed a law that would in effect stop TikTok from being made available in the U.S. unless it's sold off to a non-China-linked company. This morning (Dec. 6), the federal D.C. Circuit upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge (and some other legal challenges); Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh explain. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

How does European free speech law differ from American free speech law, when it comes to “hate speech,” blasphemy, and misinformation? Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh welcome Jacob Mchangama, who is CEO of The Future of Free Speech; research professor of political science at Vanderbilt; the author of Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media and other works on free speech; Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; and a trained Danish lawyer who is one of the leading experts in comparative free speech law. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

In this week's episode of then & now, we present a recording of a recent event hosted by the UCLA History Department, "Why History Matters: Reproductive Rights and Justice." This event brought together experts to explore the far-reaching effects of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022. Hosted by Kevin Terraciano, the conversation delves into the historical misuse of legal doctrines to limit reproductive freedoms and calls for a comprehensive reproductive justice framework that extends beyond abortion to include the right to have or not have children and to raise children in safe environments. Professor Cary Franklin critiques the Supreme Court's "history and tradition" test in Dobbs, arguing it distorts historical perspectives on liberty and equality, while Dean Alexandra Minna Stern discusses the lasting impacts of eugenic sterilization on marginalized groups, emphasizing how patterns of reproductive oppression persist today. Professor Elizabeth O'Brien examines Mexico's recent Supreme Court rulings decriminalizing abortion and highlights grassroots activism's role in shaping a broader framework for reproductive rights in Latin America. In the U.S., maternal mortality and preventable deaths have risen sharply since the Dobbs decision, underscoring the panel's call for historical research to inform advocacy as surveillance and criminalization of reproductive health grow. Through these comparative perspectives, the discussion powerfully illustrates how understanding historical contexts can guide efforts to protect and expand reproductive rights in the U.S.Kevin Terraciano is a Professor and the Department Chair of History at UCLA. He specializes in Latin American history, especially Mexico and the Indigenous cultures and languages of central and southern Mexico. Among many books and translations, he is the author of The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: Ñudzahui History, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries, a comprehensive study of Mixtec society and their adaptation to colonial rule.Cary Franklin is the McDonald/Wright Chair of Law at UCLA and serves as the faculty director of the Williams Institute at UCLA as well as the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. Her work has appeared in numerous publications including the Harvard Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the NYU Law Review, the Supreme Court Review, the Virginia Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal.Alexandra Minna Stern is a professor of English and history and the Dean of UCLA's Division of Humanities. She co-directs the Sterilization and Social Justice Lab, which studies eugenic sterilization practices in the U.S. and their impact on marginalized groups. She is the author of the award-winning Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America, and the author of Telling Genes: The Story of Genetic Counseling in America, which was named a Choice 2013 Outstanding Academic Title in Health Sciences.Elizabeth O'Brien is an Assistant Professor in the UCLA Meyer and Renee Luskin Department of History, specializing in the history of reproductive health in Mexico. Professor O'Brien is also a member of the cross-field group in the History of Gender and Sexuality. Professor O'Brien's 2023 book on colonialism and reproductive healthcare in Mexico, Surgery and Salvation: The 

My guest today is Jill Lens, who serves as the Dorothy M. Willie Professor in Excellence at the University of Iowa school of law. Professor Lens is a leading legal expert in reproductive justice and rights, with a particular focus on the legal treatment of stillbirth and pregnancy more generally. Her research is inspired by her son Caleb's stillbirth in 2017, when she was 37 weeks pregnant. She joins us today to discuss her recent paper, “Valuing Reproductive Loss," published in 2023 by the Georgetown Law Journal and coauthored with Dov Fox. That paper explores the tension between abortion rights and compensating the victims of reproductive loss and argues for a post-Dobbs reasessment of the law. I'm joined by UVA Law 3L, Alyssa Lawrence, who co-hosts this episode.Further Reading:Lens bio: https://law.uiowa.edu/people/jill-wieber-lens "Original Public Meaning and Pregnancy's Ambiguities," with Evan D. Bernick, 122 Michigan Law Review 1443 (2024), Journal | HeinOnline | UI Off-Campus Access (HeinOnline) | Lexis | Westlaw "Valuing Reproductive Loss," with Dov Fox, 112 Georgetown Law Journal 61 (2023), Journal | HeinOnline | UI Off-Campus Access (HeinOnline) | Lexis | Westlaw"Abortion, Pregnancy Loss, & Subjective Fetal Personhood," with Greer Donley, 75 Vanderbilt Law Review 1649 (2022), Journal | HeinOnline | UI Off-Campus Access (HeinOnline) | Lexis | Westlaw"Counting Stillbirths," 56 UC Davis Law Review 525 (2022), JournalKrawiec bio: https://www.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/kdk4q/1181653

Can you sue protesters who block the street in front of your business? Protesters who block your way to work? People who are trying to get you fired? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, who have written and taught about tort law as well as free speech law, discuss all these questions and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss calls to restrict misinformation, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to Hurricane Helene. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

On episode 222, we welcome Jon Michaels and David Noll to discuss the alliance between vigilante groups and governments in the US, the four types of vigilantism and how they affect our lives, how vigilante groups utilize state laws to limit freedom of movement, the roots of vigilantism in the slavery era, the argument of individual liberty as a veil for tyranny, and the societal effects of the merger between business interests and right-wing cultural warriors. Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional, administrative, and national-security law. His award-winning scholarship has been published in The Yale Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, and the Harvard Law Review; his popular essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, and The Forward. A Yale Law graduate and former Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute, serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project, and is a faculty affiliate of UCLA's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. His first book, Constitutional Coup, was published by Harvard University Press. David Noll is the associate dean for faculty research and development and a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. His scholarly writings on civil procedure, complex litigation, and administrative law have appeared in the California Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review, among others, and his popular writing has appeared in venues including The New York Times, Politico, Slate, and the New York Law Journal. A graduate of Columbia University and New York University School of Law, Noll is an academic fellow of the National Institute for Civil Justice. He clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. | Jon Michaels and David Noll | ► Website | http://www.jondmichaels.com/about ► Twitter 1| https://x.com/davidlnoll ► Twitter 2 | https://x.com/JonDMichaels ► Bluesky | https://bsky.app/profile/david.noll.org ► Vigilante Nation Book | https://amzn.to/3zEjQvM Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the various rules the Court applies in obscenity cases and the forthcoming Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision.  Fun fact: Associate Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote the “I know it when I see it” line in a 1964 obscenity opinion, later concluded that any such obscenity test would be unconstitutionally vague. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Incitement, solicitation, fighting words, threats, bad tendencies, and more, with special attention to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Court's little-publicized precedent on the subject. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.  

In Moody v. Netchoice, the Supreme Court considered the Florida and Texas laws that tried to limit social media platforms' power to moderate (or is it censor?) user posts.  In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court considered whether the federal government impermissibly pressured social media platforms to moderate (or is it censor?) user posts.  What did the Court tell us?  Jane and Eugene try to figure it out. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Silicon Valley) sits down with First Amendment scholars Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh to explore Internet policy and free speech. Topics include the TikTok ban, social media child addiction claims, competition, and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Congressman Ro Khanna represents California's 17th Congressional District, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, and is serving his fourth term. Rep. Khanna serves on the House Armed Services Committee as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies and Information Systems (CITI), as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, a member of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, and on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, where he previously chaired the Environmental Subcommittee. As a leading progressive in the House, Rep, Khanna is working to restore American manufacturing and technology leadership, improve the lives of working people, and advance U.S. leadership on climate, human rights, and diplomacy around the world. Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Is AI output generally protected by the First Amendment, even though AIs have no self to express (or so we think ...)? Can people sue if they are libeled by AIs, or if AIs give them false information that leads to physical harm? Jane and Eugene discuss this, and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Eugene Volokh is a visiting fellow (soon to be senior fellow) at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he has been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed., 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

The First Amendment protects against certain kinds of indirect government suppression of speech, as well as direct. That means the government can't coerce bookstores, platforms, and the like, to remove material. But when does persuasion become coercion? And when, if ever, is even noncoercive persuasion aimed at the removal of speech unconstitutional? ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Eugene Volokh is a visiting fellow (soon to be senior fellow) at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he has been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed., 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

When public school libraries remove books based on the views expressed in the books, are they violating the First Amendment? What if the librarians stocking the shelves have a political agenda? It all comes down to a precedent called Pico, and Eugene and Jane disagree about which Supreme Court justices got the rule right. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Eugene Volokh is a visiting fellow (soon to be Senior fellow) at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he has been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed., 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. RELATED RESOURCES: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982)

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine The mostly volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Martha Dickinson, Michael Fisher, Claire Fox, Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Ann Luther, Rick Lyles, Judith Lyles, Wendilee O'Brien, Lane Sturtevant, Leah Taylor, and Linda Washburn. Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics This month: We will talk about the history of the Electoral College and how it's working in the 21st century. What reforms are needed, and which are possible? What is the NPV compact, and how would it work? Is it right for Maine? Guest/s: Mike Saxl, former Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives and Managing Principal of Maine Street Solutions, the leading proponent of the National Popular Vote in Maine www.verrill-law.com/michael-v-saxl/ Kate Shaw, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/kateshaw To learn more about this topic: Our View: It's time to pick the president by national popular vote | Portland Press Herald, Editorial, January, 2024 www.pressherald.com/2024/01/14/our-view-its-time-to-pick-the-president-by-national-popular-vote-2/ No thanks to national popular vote | Bangor Daily News, Matt Gagnon op-ed, January, 2024, www.bangordailynews.com/2024/01/10/opinion/opinion-contributor/national-popular-vote-problems/ Arguments against national popular vote compact fall short | Bangor Daily News, Amy Fried op-ed, January, 2024, www.bangordailynews.com/2024/01/30/opinion/opinion-contributor/arguments-against-national-popular-vote-compact-fall-short-joam40zk0w/ Yarmouth representative pitches National Popular Vote plan | Spectrum News, January, 2024, spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2024/01/08/yarmouth-representative-pitches-national-popular-vote-plan-for-presidential-elections National Popular Vote | National Conference of State Legislatures, December, 2023, shows state-by-state passage, www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/national-popular-vote Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College | Pew Research, September, 2023, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/ “A Mystifying and Distorting Factor”: The Electoral College and American Democracy | Michigan Law Review, Katharine Shaw, 2022, repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8442&context=mlr The National Popular Vote, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice, December, 2020, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/national-popular-vote-explained?utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED The Electoral College is flawed — so are the alternatives: Experts | ABC News, December, 2020, abcnews.go.com/Politics/electoral-college-flawed-alternatives/story?id=74708394 Why We Need A National Popular Vote | Robert Reich, m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn8rWMVGlfQ About the host: Ann currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. In her work for the League, Ann has worked for greater public understanding of public policy issues and for the League's priority issues in Clean Elections & Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights, Ethics in Government, Ranked Choice Voting, and Repeal of Term Limits. Representing LWVME at Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, she served that coalition as co-president from 2006 to 2011. She remains on the board of MCCE and serves as Treasurer. She is active in the LWV-Downeast and hosts their monthly radio show, The Democracy Forum, on WERU FM Community Radio -which started out in 2004 as an recurring special, and became a regular monthly program in 2012. She was the 2013 recipient of the Baldwin Award from the ACLU of Maine for her work on voting rights and elections. She joined the League in 1998 when she retired as Senior Vice President at SEI Investments. Ann was a founder of the MDI Restorative Justice Program, 1999 – 2000, and served on its Executive Board. The post Democracy Forum 2/16/24: National Popular Vote: What do we need? How can we get it? first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

On this episode of the Daily Stoic Podcast, Ryan talks with American author, lawyer, and legal scholar Kermit Roosevelt III on Honoring and doing what is right, Why peoples values and sense of honor are collapsing, How many people know who Marcus Aurelius is because of Gladiator, and his book The Nation That Never Was.Kermit is an American author, lawyer, and legal scholar. He is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a great-great-grandson of United States President Theodore Roosevelt and a distant cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt worked as a lawyer with Mayer Brown in Chicago from 2000 to 2002 before joining the Penn Law faculty in 2002. Roosevelt's areas of academic interest include conflicts of law and constitutional law. He has published in the Virginia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Columbia Law Review, among others, and his articles have been cited twice by the United States Supreme Court and numerous times by state and lower federal courts.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

On this episode of the Daily Stoic Podcast, Ryan talks with American author, lawyer, and legal scholar Kermit Roosevelt III on Honoring and doing what is right, Why peoples values and sense of honor are collapsing, How many people know who Marcus Aurelius is because of Gladiator, and his book The Nation That Never Was.Kermit is an American author, lawyer, and legal scholar. He is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a great-great-grandson of United States President Theodore Roosevelt and a distant cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt worked as a lawyer with Mayer Brown in Chicago from 2000 to 2002 before joining the Penn Law faculty in 2002. Roosevelt's areas of academic interest include conflicts of law and constitutional law. He has published in the Virginia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Columbia Law Review, among others, and his articles have been cited twice by the United States Supreme Court and numerous times by state and lower federal courts.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

In den 1910er- und 20er-Jahren erschüttert eine beispiellose, von Gier getriebene Mordserie die indigene Osage Nation im Nordosten von Oklahoma, USA. Nachdem die Osage durch das in ihrem Reservat gefundene Öl reich werden, ermorden Nachbarn, Freunde, Mitbürger und hohe Würdenträger Dutzende von ihnen auf heimtückische Weise – mit Gift, mit Brandstiftung und Bomben, mit roher Gewalt. Es dauert viele Jahre, bis die Hauptverantwortlichen gestoppt werden – und dann dauert es noch einmal fast 100 Jahre, bis dieses Kapitel vielleicht endlich aufgeklärt werden kann...........NEU!! Jetzt His2Go unterstützen für tolle Vorteile, über Acast+ oder Steady.Werde His2Go Hero oder His2Go Legend: https://plus.acast.com/s/his2go-geschichte-podcast.Werde auch ohne Kreditkarte His2Go Hero oder His2Go Legend: steadyhq.com/his2go.........Das Folgenbild zeigt eine Zeichnung zu den Morden in der Enid Morning News, 07.02.1926........WERBUNGDu willst dir die Rabatte unserer Werbepartner sichern? Hier geht's zu den Angeboten!........LITERATURGrann, David: Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI, New York u. a. 2017.McAuliffe Jr., Dennis: Bloodland: A Family Story of Oil, Greed and Murder on the Osage Reservation, San Francisco 1999.Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI by David Grann. Review by: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, in: Michigan Law Review, Vol. 117, No. 6 (2019), S. 1253-1269.Morska, Izabela: Animality as an excuse for murder: David Grann and Killers of the Flower Moon, in: Beyond Philology 19/4 (2022), S. 97-127.Die Osage und ihr Vermächtnis heute: siehe den Essay von Jean Dennison, "What Killers of The Flower Moon Doesn't Show About Osage Nation's Legacy", Time, 19.10.2023, unter diesem Link..........UNTERSTÜTZUNGIhr könnt uns dabei unterstützen, weiterhin jeden 10., 20. und 30. des Monats eine Folge zu veröffentlichen!Folgt und bewertet uns bei Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Podimo, Instagram, Twitter oder über eure Lieblings-Podcastplattformen. Über diesen Spendenlink oder unseren Fanartikel-Shop könnt ihr uns auch finanziell unterstützen!Wir freuen uns über euer Feedback, Input und Vorschläge zum Podcast, die ihr uns über das Kontaktformular auf der Website, Instagram und unsere Feedback E-Mail: kontakt@his2go.de schicken könnt. An dieser Stelle nochmals vielen Dank an jede einzelne Rückmeldung, die uns bisher erreicht hat und uns sehr motiviert..........COPYRIGHTMusic from https://filmmusic.io: “Sneaky Snitch” by Kevin MacLeod and "Plain Loafer" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com) License: CC BY !Neu! Jetzt hier His2Go unterstützen, Themen mitbestimmen und Quiz2Go mit Moderatorin Chiara erleben! https://plus.acast.com/s/his2go-geschichte-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

According to the non-profit Mapping Police Violence, since 2013 when experts first starting tracking police shootings, last year was the deadliest year on record with 1,176 law enforcement gun deaths, or more than three people per day and nearly 100 per month.  In 2022 Blacks were three three times more likely to be killed by police than Whites.  However in, for example, MPLS and Chicago, Black shooting deaths were respectively 28 and 25 times more likely than White.   In her recently published book by Viking Press, Prof. Schwartz explains how the corruption of the 4th amendment and Civil Rights law, the creation of the legal fiction “qualified immunity” and other reasons make it nearly impossible to police the police.  During this 38-minute interview, Prof. Schwartz begins by discussing the case of Ornee Norris. She in turn explains the courts' undermining of 4th amendment's protection from unreasonable searches, civil rights protections, specifically section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Courts 1967 creation of, in Pierson v. Ray, of qualified immunity, discusses the case of systematic violence by Vellejo, CA, police, the failure by governments to learn from these cases, efforts by states to pass laws ending qualified immunity, notes the value of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and finally comments on the issue of the militarization of the police. Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy.  She was a recipient of UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015 and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Beyond Shielded, her recent scholarship has been published in the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and elsewhere. She has also written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Boston Review, and Politico, and has appeared on NPR's Fresh Air, CBS Sunday Morning, PBS NewsHour, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, and elsewhere. Professor Schwartz is also co-author with Stephen Yeazell and Maureen Carroll of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (11th Edition). Professor Schwartz was graduated from Brown University and Yale Law School. She clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.   This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

Adam White and Jace Lington talk with Josh Chafetz and Noah Rosenblum about some of the big administrative law cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. They discuss the state of the Court, where things might be headed next, and problems with conservative critiques of the Administrative State.Notes:Noah Rosenblum, What We Talk About When We Talk About the Rule of Law in the Administrative State, New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2023)Josh Chafetz, The New Judicial Power Grab, St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 67 (2023)CFPB v. CFAS, Brief of Professors of History and Constitutional Law as Amici Curiae (2023)Beau J. Baumann, Americana Administrative Law, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 111 (2023)Nikolas Bowie & Daphna Renan, The Separation-of-Powers Counterrevolution, Vol. 131, No. 7 (2022)Ashraf Ahmed, Lev Menand, Noah Rosenblum, The Tragedy of Presidential Administration, Gray Center Working Paper, 2021Josh Chafetz, Congress's Constitution (2019)Leah Litman, Debunking Antinovelty, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 66, No. 7 (2017)Kent Barnett & Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 1 (2017)Daniel R. Ernst, Tocqueville's Nightmare, Oxford University Press (2014)Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents (1991)

In this compelling episode of Faithful Politics, Political Host Will Wright goes one-on-one with Professor Caroline Mala Corbin of the University of Miami School of Law. While Faithful Host Pastor Josh Burtram couldn't join in, the episode doesn't skip a beat in addressing some of the most intricate legal and social issues facing America today. A central theme is the U.S. Constitution—specifically, its role in shaping modern American society and safeguarding individual freedoms. Caroline offers unique insights into how the Constitution isn't just a historical document but an evolving tapestry that continually informs our civil liberties.The conversation then shifts to the First Amendment, dissecting its two main clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause. This segment is a goldmine for anyone interested in the delicate balance between state and religion, as well as the boundaries of free speech in an increasingly polarized world. Caroline illuminates these topics with examples, case studies, and personal viewpoints, making complex legal jargon accessible to all. Another enriching theme touched upon is feminism, particularly its relationship with both faith and law. Caroline delves into the complexities of gender issues within religious and legal frameworks, offering a nuanced perspective that is both academic and relatable.This episode is a treasure trove of knowledge for anyone at the intersection of faith, politics, and law. Whether you're a law student, a legal practitioner, a faith leader, or simply someone intrigued by the complexities of American society, this episode has something for youGuest Bio:Caroline Mala Corbin is Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches U.S. Constitutional Law I, U.S. Constitutional Law II, First Amendment, the Religion Clauses, the Free Speech Clause, Feminism and the First Amendment, and Advanced Topics in Reproductive Rights. Her scholarship focuses on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, particularly their intersection with equality issues.Professor Corbin's articles have been published in the New York University Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Boston University Law Review, and Emory Law Journal, among others. Her writing has also appeared in the online editions of the Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Michigan Law Review, California Law Review, and Virginia Law Review. As well as writing for Take Care Blog, ACSblog, and NBC Think, Professor Corbin is a frequent commentator for local and national media on First Amendment questions.Professor Corbin joined the Miami law faculty in 2008 after completing a postdoctoral research fellowship at Columbia Law School. Before her fellowship, she litigated civil rights cases as a pro bono fellow at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and as an attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. She also clerked for the Hon. M. Blane Michael of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Professor Corbin holds a B.A. from Harvard University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. She was a James Kent Scholar while at Columbia Law School, where she also won the Pauline Berman Heller Prize and the James A. Elkins Prize for Constitutional Law.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

In this episode of the FedSoc Films Podcast, we spoke with Professor Jeffrey Bellin, a professor at William and Mary Law School and expert on criminal law and procedure. In law, even the definition of a single word can have implications for how that law is interpreted by the courts. We dive into some of the past Fourth Amendment cases and how the interpretation of certain terms affects privacy in the United States. Thanks again for listening to the FedSoc Films Podcast! Be sure to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform. Katz on the Internet: Privacy in the Digital Age here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KqfL6lRKI4 Learn more about Jeffrey Bellin here:https://law2.wm.edu/faculty/bios/fulltime/jbellin.php Read Professor Bellin’s article in the Michigan Law Review on “Fourth Amendment Textualism”:https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol118/iss2/3/ Visit https://fedsoc.org/ to learn more!Follow us on Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter:https://www.instagram.com/fedsoc/https://www.youtube.com/thefederalistsocietyhttps://twitter.com/FedSoc As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

My guests today are Mark Fenster of the University of Florida Levin College of Law and Dave Hoffman of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. We're discussing Mark's recent article, How Reputational Nondisclosure Agreements Fail (Or, In Praise of Breach), forthcoming in The Marquette Law Review. Mark Fenster is the Marshall M. Criser Eminent Scholar Chair in Electronic Communications and Administrative Law at the Levin College of Law. His legal research has focused on government transparency, legal intellectual history, and constitutional limits on government regulation. He is the author of the book The Transparency Fix: Secrets, Leaks, and Uncontrollable Government Information (Stanford University Press, 2017), and his articles and essays have appeared in the California Law Review, Michigan Law Review, and the Iowa Law Review, among others. David Hoffman is the William A. Schnader Professor of Law and Deputy Dean at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Professor Hoffman is a widely-cited scholar who focuses his research and teaching on contract law.  His work is typically interdisciplinary, built through collaboration with co-authors from a variety of fields. He has engaged in the national conversation sparked by the #metoo movement, publishing a paper with a (then) Penn Carey Law student that argues that nondisclosure clauses in employment contracts violate public policy.Further Reading:Mark Fenster Bio, University of FloridaDave Hoffman Bio, University of PennsylvaniaMark Fenster, How Reputational Nondisclosure Agreements Fail (Or, In Praise of Breach), SSRNDavid Hoffman & Erik Lampmann, Hushing Contracts  

The Supreme Court issued a major ruling today that rejects a legal theory that could have reshaped federal elections in this country, giving state legislatures power to set rules for federal elections. The high court's ruling could have an important role in preventing political gerrymandering...the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries that create an unfair advantage for a specific party. MPR News host Cathy Wurzer speaks with Jason Marisam, an Associate Professor of Law at Hamline University in St. Paul. He's been following this case, and he wrote about it this spring for the Michigan Law Review...which happened to have been cited by the authors of three briefs in this specific case taken up by the High Court.

McConnell Center welcomes Professor Jeffery Pojanowski to discuss Constitutional Interpretation and the Classical Legal Tradition. Jeff Pojanowski joined the faculty and community of Notre Dame Law School in 2010 and was promoted to full professor in 2015. He teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, jurisprudence, legal interpretation, and torts. He has published work in the Georgetown Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal, among other publications. He serves as co-editor of The American Journal of Jurisprudence. Pojanowski earned his A.B. in Public Policy with highest honors from Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2004, where he was Articles Co-Chair for the Harvard Law Review. After law school, he served as a law clerk to then-Judge John Roberts on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then to Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States. He then practiced law with Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., where he specialized in appellate litigation and administrative-law matters. Important Links More about Jeff Pojanowski Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. Views expressed in this show are those of the participants and not necessarily those of the McConnell Center.  

Is Double Indemnity the best insurance movie ever? Is double indemnity even a real thing? Welcome to the Insurance vs History Podcast! In this episode, I discuss the movie Double Indemnity starring Fred McMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, and Edward G Robinson, and the concept of double indemnity in the insurance industry. Sources and Links: Double Indemnity - Wikipedia 10 Fascinating Facts About Double Indemnity | Mental Floss Double Indemnity movie review (1944) | Roger Ebert Ruth Snyder - Wikipedia The 1927 Murder That Became a Media Circus—And a Famous Movie - HISTORY Thompson v. Prudential Ins. c. of America, 84 Ga. App. 214 | Casetext Search + Citator Limitation of Risk in Double Indemnity Clause, Columbia Law Review, Vol 31, No 8 (Dec 1931), pp. 1368-1369 Interpretation of “Accidental Means” in Double Indemnity Clause, Michigan Law Review, Vol 50, No 6 (April 1952), pp. 942-944 Books: Double Indemnity - Kindle edition by Cain, James M. . Mystery, Thriller & Suspense Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. Movies: com: Double Indemnity : Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson, Porter Hall, Jean Heather, Tom Powers, Byron Barr, Richard Gaines, Fortunio Bonanova, John Philliber, Billy Wilder, Joseph Sistrom, Billy Wilder, Raymond Chandler, Loren L. Ryder: Movies & TV Music Credits: Boulangerie by Jeremy Sherman, courtesy of NeoSounds: Boulangerie, LynneMusic | NeoSounds music library Contact Me: insurancevshistory@gmail.com Website: https://insurancevshistory.libsyn.com Twitter: @insurancevshist Instagram: @ insurancevshistory Facebook:  Insurance vs History | Facebook

I learned a lot from this conversation with Steven T. Collis. I first heard about him when I received a copy of his newest book, Praying with the Enemy, from his publisher. Although I am not great with the names of the gentleman this book is based off of, their story is one that will positively influence everyone who reads it. Hearing the story of two men put into an impossible situation who help each other survive during the Korean War was very intriguing to me because I had 2 grandfathers who were stationed in Germany during the war. We also talk about something I never talk about, which is politics. We talk about some very real issues going on around the time we recorded back in June of this year.  There is something on here for everyone, so take a listen and then share it with your people! Bio: Steven T. Collis is the author of the nonfiction books The Immortals and Deep Conviction and the novels Praying with the Enemy and At Any Cost. He is a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law and founding faculty director of UT's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center and related Law & Religion Clinic. Prior to his appointment at UT, he was the Olin-Darling Research Fellow in the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and an equity partner at Holland & Hart LLP, where he was the chair of the firm's nationwide religious institutions and First Amendment practice group. He is a sought-after speaker on both writing and religion law to audiences across the United States, including foreign diplomats from countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America on behalf of the United States State Department. He has been interviewed by and quoted in various news outlets, including The Deseret News, Bloomberg, The Washington Times, Law360, Public Square Magazine, The Salt Lake Tribune, PBS, The Denver Business Journal, Law Week Colorado, CBN News, and many others. Before embarking on his legal and writing career, Steven graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif and served as an editor on the Michigan Law Review and the Michigan Journal of Race and Law. Steven also holds an M.F.A. in creative writing from Virginia Commonwealth University, where he served as the associate editor of the literary journal Blackbird. He completed his undergraduate studies, with university honors, at Brigham Young University. Originally from New Mexico, Steven lives in Austin with his wife and children. Anchor Verse: Ephesians 4: 11-16 Connect with Steven: Website: https://www.steventcollis.com ***This podcast is a proud member of the Spark Network! It is a network of Christian podcasts that cover so many different topics!  Head over to: https://www.sparkmedia.ventures/spark-network#/ to find more amazing podcasts!!***

In this episode, Amy interviews Professor Bill Henderson of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.  Prof. Henderson's research focuses primarily on the empirical analysis of the legal profession and has appeared in leading legal journals, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review.  He regularly publishes articles in The American Lawyer, The ABA Journal, and The National Law Journal.  His observations on the legal market are also frequently quoted in the mainstream press, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, and National Public Radio. Based on his research and public speaking, Professor Henderson was included on the National Law Journal's list of The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America (complied every ten years).  In 2015 and 2016, he was named the Most Influential Person in Legal Education by The National Jurist magazine. In addition to his research and teaching, Professor Henderson has participated in several legal innovation initiatives: 2018 to present: Co-founder of the Institute for the Future of Law Practice (IFLP, “i-flip”), a nonprofit that designs and delivers curricula and training for T-shaped legal professions (i.e., law combined with data, process, technology, design principles, and business). 2017 to present: Founder and editor of Legal Evolution, an online applied research publication focused on successful legal industry innovation. 2010-2016: Co-founder of Lawyer Metrics, an applied research company that helps lawyers and law firms use data to make better operational and strategic decisions. Lawyer Metrics (now LawyerMetrix) was acquired by AccessLex Institute in 2015.  Additional links mentioned in the podcast: On diffusion theory: https://www.legalevolution.org/2019/06/scoring-your-innovation-098/   On the CRT: https://www.legalevolution.org/2019/06/is-access-to-justice-a-design-problem-099/

Is today's America really the one the Founding Fathers envisioned? That is the question constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt asks, tracing the majority of American political sentiments from the modern day not back as far as the Revolution, but to the Reconstruction era. Kermit Roosevelt is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the great-great grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. He is an expert in constitutional law, national security, conflicts of law and civil liberties. His work has been published in the Virginia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Columbia Law Review and he is the author of two historical novels examining themes of equality and civil liberty. In his latest book, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story, Roosevelt argues that America in the modern day is not the ideological descendant of the era of the Founding Fathers but that of Reconstruction and Abraham Lincoln. Examining the writings, history and political thought of America's first century, he explains that many of the country's core political beliefs, especially equality, originated in the Reconstruction era not as a return to the Founder's vision but as a rejection of it. Join us as Roosevelt rethinks how American history is viewed, and how the ideas underpinning the country have shifted in the past two centuries—and along with it, what it means to be American itself. SPEAKERS Kermit Roosevelt III David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; Author, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story In Conversation with David Spencer Founder, SenSpa; Member, Commonwealth Club of California Board of Governors We are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded Live on September 8th, 2022 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Bitch, A Cow, And A Pig Walked Into A Bar: Why Misogynists Animalize Women - Sherry Colb JD Sherry Colb • http://www lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/sherry-colb• Book – Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger? #SherryColb  #Veganism #Vegan Sherry Colb is an C.S. Wong Professor of Law at Cornell Law School and author of the book,  Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger?: And Other Questions People Ask Vegans. If you're vegan, how many times have you been asked these, and other similarly challenging, questions from non-vegans? What about plants? Don't animals eat other animals? There are no perfect vegans, so why bother?  Using humor and reason, Sherry Colb takes these questions at face value and also delves deeply into the motivations behind them, coming up with answers that are not only intelligent but insightful about human nature. Through examples, case studies, and clear-eyed logic, she provides arguments for everything from why veganism is compatible with the world's major religions to why vegetarianism is not enough. In the end, she shows how it is possible for vegans and non-vegans to engage in a mutually beneficial conversation without descending into counterproductive name-calling, and to work together to create a more hospitable world for human animals and non-human animals alike.She earned an A.B. from Columbia College (Valedictorian) and a J.D. from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude). After graduation, Colb clerked for Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the United States Supreme Court.  She was a member of the Rutgers University School of Law faculty in Newark when she joined the Cornell faculty in 2008 and has held the position of Visiting Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and Columbia Law School.Her research and teaching interests center on issues of constitutional criminal procedure (especially the Fourth Amendment), animal rights, sexual equality, and evidence. Colb's scholarship has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and elsewhere. She has published a book about the modern challenges of sex equality, When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law (Rowman & Littlefield 2007), and she authored a book about veganism and animal rights, “Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger?” and Other Questions People Ask Vegans (Lantern 2013). Most recently, she has co-authored a book about animal rights and abortion, Beating Hearts:Abortion and Animal Rights (Columbia University Press 2016).  She composes a bi-weekly column on Verdict.Justia.com as well as regular posts on the blog, Dorf on Law. She is admitted to the New York Bar and the U.S. Supreme Court Bar.To Contact Sherry Colb go to lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/sherry-colb CLICK HERE - To Checkout Our MEMBERSHIP CLUB: http://www.realtruthtalks.com • Social Media ChannelsFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TRTAHConferenceInstagram : https://www.instagram.com/therealtruthabouthealth/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/RTAHealth Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-real-truth-about-health-conference/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealTruthAboutHealth    • Check out our Podcasts  Visit us on Apple Podcast and Itunes search:  The Real Truth About Health Free 17 Day Live Online Conference Podcast Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/23a037be-99dd-4099-b9e0-1cad50774b5a/real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcastSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0RZbS2BafJIEzHYyThm83J Google:https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS8yM0ZqRWNTMg%3D%3DStitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcastAudacy: https://go.audacy.com/partner-podcast-listen-real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcastiHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-real-truth-about-health-li-85932821/ Deezer: https://www.deezer.com/us/show/2867272 Reason: https://reason.fm/podcast/real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcast • Other Video ChannelsYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealTruthAboutHealthVimeo:https://vimeo.com/channels/1733189Rumble:  https://rumble.com/c/c-1111513 Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/TRTAHConference/videos/?ref=page_internal DailyMotion: https://www.dailymotion.com/TheRealTruthAboutHealth BitChute:https://www.bitchute.com/channel/JQryXTPDOMih/ Disclaimer:Medical and Health information changes constantly. Therefore, the information provided in this podcast should not be considered current, complete, or exhaustive. Reliance on any information provided in this podcast is solely at your own risk. The Real Truth About Health does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, products, procedures, or opinions referenced in the following podcasts, nor does it exercise any authority or editorial control over that material. The Real Truth About Health provides a forum for discussion of public health issues. The views and opinions of our panelists do not necessarily reflect those of The Real Truth About Health and are provided by those panelists in their individual capacities. The Real Truth About Health has not reviewed or evaluated those statements or claims. 

This month, June 2022, tune in for our Student Clinic Spotlight Series! During this series, we're featuring students from law schools around the country who have participated in a variety law school clinics.  Over the past two seasons of the show, many of our guests have talked about the impact that clinic work has had on their career trajectories and work experience. So, we've decided to chat with students who are in the thick of a clinic experience and hear more about advice they have for law students. Whether you're thinking about doing a clinic in law school, learning more about what law school clinics do, or hearing from students who have lots of wisdom to share, this series is for you! In this week's episode, we talk to Jessica Paduganan who just graduated from The University of Michigan Law School. During law school, Jessica participated in the Civil-Criminal Litigation Clinic and the Workers' Rights Clinic, the Michigan Law Review, and the First Generation Law Students group. Connect with Jessica on LinkedIn. Find Personal Jurisdiction online at https://www.personaljxpod.comOn Twitter @PersonalJxPodAnd on Instagram @PersonalJxPodcastPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Personal Jurisdiction's logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.

Heads up: Content warning for sexual assult and predators…blame Wicham for all of these very serious discussions. Ugh, we hate him. As always feel free to skip this part if you're not up for it. The discussion happens at the 35 minute mark and ends around minute 48. It's not overly graphic or explicit but be aware and take care of yourself if you need to. Back at home, Elizabeth confides in Jane about what happened at Rosings. Mrs. Bennet, Kitty, and Lydia are distraught that the regiment is leaving and want to follow them to Brighton. Lydia's dreams come true when she gets an invite from the Colonel's wife Mrs. Forester to accompany her to Brighton. Elizabeth gives Wickham the cold shoulder. Elizabeth reflects on her parents' marriage and how it affects the family. Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner take Elizabeth on vacation to Derbyshire and contemplate visiting Pemberley. We talk about loveless marriages and consult a law article on the patterns of sexual predators. Small tangent on the Jersey Shore (the beaches, not the show). Also how do you pronounce Derbyshire?? Next time: It's a one chapter episode because  we're going to Pemberley! Chapter 43 Link to Michigan Law Review article: Pride and Predators by Heidi S. Bond Email us: Janeaustenculturenight@gmail.com Hosted by Laurel Nakai and Akina Cox Music and Production by Laurel Nakai Artwork by Akina Cox

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Panos Merkouris (University of Groningen) joins us to talk about his ERC project TRICI-Law that focuses on interpretation of customary international law. TRICI-Law's website: https://trici-law.com Publications mentioned in the episode: Merkouris, Panos. Article 31(3)(c) VCLT and the Principle of Systemic Integration, Normative Shadows in Plato's Cave, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015. Peter Haggenmacher, “La doctrine des deux éléments du droit coutumier dans la pratique de la Cour internationale”, Revue Générale de Droit International Public 90 (1986): 5–125. Monica Hakimi, “Making Sense of Customary International Law”, Michigan Law Review 118, no. 8 (2020): 1487–1538. Sur, Serge. “La créativité du droit international”, in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 363, 2013. Whitehead, Alfred North and Russell, Bertrand. Principia Mathematica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Neil Gaiman, The Sandman (comic book). Christos Kithreotis (Χρίστος Κυθρεώτης), Ekei Pou Zoume (Εκεί Που Ζούμε), Athens: Patakis (Εκδόσεις Πατάκη), 2019.

Monica Hakimi (University of Michigan) joins us to talk about flaws of international legal positivism, interplay between formal and informal law, and customary international law. Publications referred to in the episode: Jutta Brunnée and Stephen J. Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Monica Hakimi, ‘The Jus ad Bellum's Regulatory Form', American Journal of International Law 112, no. 2 (2018): 151–90. Monica Hakimi, ‘Making Sense of Customary International Law', Michigan Law Review 118, no. 8 (2020): 1487–1538. Don Herzog, Sovereignty, RIP (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2020).

In this episode, Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, discusses his article "The Procedure Fetish," which was published in the Michigan Law Review. Bagley begins by observing that administrative procedure has both costs and benefits. He argues that we fetishize administrative procedure, telling ourselves it provides benefits it can't deliver, at the cost of preventing agencies from regulating more effectively. He argues that administrative procedure pushes regulation in a libertarian or "status quo" direction. And he reflects on why we have chosen to put our administrative eggs in a procedural basket. Bagley is on Twitter at @nicholas_bagley.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Oh, it's a random Tuesday in February. Let's see what's brewing in the pages of British GQ? Announcements on PS5 manufacturing, the 2021 PlayStation schedule, the future of PSVR and PC Ports (including Hoeg Law favorite Days Gone), and...some Cyberpunk 2077 shade? Well that just makes perfect sense. Let's take a look. At this point, we fully expect to see the next PlayStation news dump in the University of Michigan Law Review...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/KnmXUHp2-P4 #JimRyan #PlayStation #News *** HELP SUPPORT THE CHANNEL PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/VirtualLegality STREAMLABS - https://streamlabs.com/richardhoeg STORE - https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store *** CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction 04:19 PS5 Manufacturing Difficulties 08:42 The 2021 Games Lineup 11:04 Throwing Some Cyberpunk Shade 14:28 Game Delays 16:52 The Future of PSVR 22:00 The PC Future 29:59 Conclusion (Support for Japan) *** Discussed in this episode: "PlayStation’s Jim Ryan: ‘We’re making a completely new VR format for PS5’" British GQ - February 23, 2021 https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/playstation-vr-jim-ryan-interview-2021 "Sony Removes Cyberpunk 2077 from PlayStation (PSN) INDEFINITELY (VL374)" YouTube Video - December 17, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/-L_IxPrtkuY "PlayStation boss reiterates PS5’s Japanese support: ‘We’re strengthening ties’" VGC - February 23, 2021 https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/playstation-boss-reiterates-ps5s-japanese-support-were-strengthening-ties/ *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitch: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com

Commissioner Johnston knows attorneys who are actively involved in the abortion debate and on both sides of the issue. Many assert a mastery and working knowledge of Roe v. Wade’s intricacies. But honest lawyers will not make any such claim. Perhaps what is more frightening, he knows many more commentators and reporters who will ‘explain’ the decision at length.  The problem is, this ‘well-known’ decision cannot possibly be explained. It does not and cannot make sense.  Even liberal legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz,1 and Cass Sunstein,2 deny its ability to stand on its own merits. Progressive Professor Laurence Tribe is clear: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."3 Edward Lazarus was a Blackmun law clerk who "loved Roe's author like a grandfather." He wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method .... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."4 It is only in understanding this problem of Roe that one can see the real significance of its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton. The decisions were linked and released in tandem. In Doe, Justice Blackmun switches themes entirely. He does not focus on stages of pregnancy or the woman. He now focuses on the individual who is about to do the abortion. Doe v. Bolton, in many ways, is written for ‘the doctor.’ The state’s interest in protecting life is specifically downgraded. The Hippocratic tradition of never harming a human life: dismissed. At any time in pregnancy psychological and societal questions could be the determining factor. No physical medical conditions need be present. (Doe, 410 U.S. 191) Blackmun’s definition of the ‘health’ of the mother in gauzy, ‘gestalt’ concepts, justified a deadly surgical act. By ‘combining it’ with the confusing Roe decision, he cleans up what he quietly had admitted is an arbitrary, pregnancy-stages framework.5 In Doe he cuts through the fog. He makes the physician’s opinion the arbiter of action. Known feminist and abortion-advocate, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has openly faulted the Court's approach for actually being, "about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best.... It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered."6   It is this then, that is the real overarching issue in these decisions: legally-authorized, medical killing.   Pregnancy and abortion were confusedly and ham-handedly dealt with in Roe. But what is crisply and incisively granted to physicians in Doe is the right to use their profession to deadly effect and as they personally saw fit.  The quietly implemented, largely unexamined Doe decision is responsible for the implementation of America’s abortion practices. Three thousand years of ethical guidance had protected the physician, vulnerable patients, and civilized society from the quiet, easy way out: simply kill the human being in question. The temptation to cover mistakes; save money; accommodate coercion; reduce workload on overworked medical staff; abet antsy heirs; cease careful pain management by simply ceasing the life; diminish populations of ‘imperfect’ dependent individuals; all of these utilitarian motives are easily implemented – and quietly so - once there is no external rule or oath to never use medicine to kill. The Oath had served as the anchoring premise not only for medical doctors, but for society’s view of ‘unimportant’ human lives entrusted to them. We are now living with the ever-expanding implications of this casual and quiet dismissal of three millennia of medical ethics. As Justice Ginsburg ironically points out, this new, physician’s ‘right to choose’ is actually the only definitive, conclusive aspect of the deadly, twin decisions, Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.    1.Dershowitz, Alan. Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Oxford U. Press 2001): "Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)...." 2. Sunstein, Cass. Quoted by McGuire, New York Sun (November 15, 2005)  3.Tribe, Laurence "Roe v. Wade and the Lesson of the Pre-RoeCase Law". Michigan Law Review. 77 (7): 1724–48. 4. Lazarus, Edward. "The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them, Findlaw's Writ (October 3, 2002). 5. Blackmun’s personal note to fellow justices. Quoted in Woodward, Bob. "The Abortion Papers Archived June 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine", Washington Post (January 22, 1989). 6.Bullington, Jonathan, (May 11, 2013) Justice Ginsburg: Roe v Wade not woman centered. Chicago Tribune   Brian Johnston is the Western Regional Director of the National Right to Life Committee. His new book, The Evil Twins: Roe and Doe; How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing will be published by New Regency Publishing and is scheduled for release on April 4, 2021.   Pre-orders available at special, pre-order pricing at New Regency, on Amazon and at AuthorStock. Mr. Johnston is available for comment and remote or in-person speaking (800) 924-2490)

Listen to today's episode of The Marketplace of Ideas to hear Robert Jerry, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor Emeritus of Law at University of Missouri School of Law, and David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy at Georgetown University Law Center, discuss Professor Jerry's recent article on "COVID-19: Responsibility and Accountability in a World of Rationing" in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences.  Robert H. Jerry, II is the Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law-Emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law. From 1998 to 2003, he held the Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professorship at the University of Missouri School of Law. From 2003 to 2014, he served as dean of the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where he also held the Levin Mabie and Levin Professorship (through 2015). He returned to MU Law as the Isidor Loeb Professor of Law in 2015, a position he held until his retirement on September 1, 2019 as the Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor-Emeritus. At the University of Missouri School of Law, he has been affiliated with the Center for Dispute Resolution as a Senior Fellow since 2003. As an emeritus faculty member, he maintains an active research agenda. He received his JD from the University of Michigan Law School, where he was a member of the Michigan Law Review, and his undergraduate degree from Indiana State University. Dr. David Hyman focuses his research and writing on the regulation and financing of health care. He teaches or has taught health care regulation, civil procedure, insurance, medical malpractice, law & economics, professional responsibility, and tax policy. He is the author of dozens of scholarly articles in leading legal and medical journals, and several books including Overcharged: Why Americans Pay Too Much For Health Care published by the Cato Institute in 2018 and co-authored with Charles Silver, and the Economics of Health Law published by Edward Elgar in 2016 and co-authored with Ronen Avraham and Charles Silver. Hyman received his BA, JD and MD from the University of Chicago. 

Last week seems at times to be ripped from a bad political thriller but the credits never roll. Sunday Edition always strives to bring ACB conversations that enrich our advocacy and education, and that cover all matters that affect our community. This week I have reached out to a very informed subject-matter expert, as well as two of our own esteemed members to discuss RBG and her accomplishments, the court past, present and future including court stacking and the possibility the court will have to determine another Presidential election. We will discuss the Nomination of the seat RBG left vacant. By the time Sunday Edition airs, President Trump will have announced his pick. Just four short (or agonizing) years ago Republicans deemed it unconscionable to allow sitting president to nominate during a election year and yet they seem determined to move forward no matter how hypocritical it looks. Possible ramifications to Roe/Wade, protections for aging and disabled persons, and LGBT rights that have been earned The Notorious (and I believe GLORIOUS) RBG, AKA Ruth Bater Ginsburg fought tirelessly for over 50 years for the equality of all citizens focusing on the rights of women and marginalized communities. Appointed by President Clinton her presence on the Court has left historic advances for All Genders Her strategic cases in the 1970s opened the door for not only women but for disabled and LGBTQ issues to advance to equality. thanks to the tireless work of RBG issues our community has advocated for were recognized and held to the standards of all being created (and acted in action) treated EQUAL. Steve Mendelsohn, President of AAVIA, scholar and author, and Chris Prentice will join me to discuss all this and answer questions from member call-in. Additionally I am so pleased to welcome Professor Kim Ford-Mazru director of the law program at UVA. Kim Forde-Mazrui joined the law faculty of the University of Virginia in 1996, and was promoted to full professor in 2001. He teaches Constitutional Law, Employment Discrimination, Criminal Law, and Race and Law. His scholarship focuses on equal protection, especially involving race and sexual orientation. His publications have considered what role race should play in placing children for adoption; whether and how to select racially and other demographically diverse juries; whether affirmative action policies that employ race-neutral means are constitutional; whether America is morally obligated to remedy past discrimination; and whether racial profiling and other discriminatory practices by law enforcement are adequately deterred by current constitutional doctrines. His scholarship has also examined the parallels between historical arguments against interracial relationships and contemporary arguments against same-sex relationships, as well as the role of tradition as a justification for banning same-sex marriage. His articles have been published in several prestigious law journals, including the University of Chicago Law Review, the California Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and the Georgetown Law Journal. The hallmark of Forde-Mazrui's approach is to take seriously the conflicting perspectives on controversial issues, and to offer constructive proposals to move society beyond current, often intractable, debates. I would like to thank and acknowledge the support,, help and resources of : Mr. Scott Marshall, Jim Kracht, Peter Altchul and of course Steve and Chris. They all aided me in my in-depth research to bring ACB a conversation that will inform and help us all to understand beyond the sound-bytes and media/political static. Sunday Edition airs live on ACB Radio Mainstream at 1pm eastern with replays at 10pm Sunday night as well as 7am Monday morning. Sunday Edition can also be found on all your favorite podcast catchers by searching ACB Sunday Edition. Comments and Questions for the show can be sent to : celebrationac@aol.com

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Scott Dodson, of UC Hastings College of Law, to discuss Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as Scott’s book on the legal legend, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Today, Aaron and Scott talk about R.B.G’s past, her stunning career, her amazing achievements, and her incredible impact on modern law.   A legal icon, R.B.G has had a profound impact on the way we think about everything from gender equality to civil procedure. Scott’s book is a collection of essays that draws together thoughtful contributors from a wide range of fields to provide a rich and compelling account of Justice Ginsburg’s career. In more than four decades as a lawyer, professor, appellate judge, and associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ginsburg has influenced the law and society in real and permanent ways. Aaron and Scott talk about how R.B.G has helped shape our world, discussing her past and exploring the historical contexts in which she pushed gender boundaries and broke barriers. Reliving Justice Ginsburg’s storied career, Scott and Aaron, touch on glass ceilings, equal protection, the Constitution and more.   An expert in civil procedure and federal courts, Scott has written more than eighty papers appearing in Stanford Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, California Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Northwestern University Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Vanderbilt Law Review, and several peer-reviewed journals, among others. He is the author of six books, including the one at the center of today’s conversation. His writings have been cited in more than twenty court opinions, including by the Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas Supreme Courts, and the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits; Professor Dodson also is a frequent news commentator, appearing on a variety of shows, and is quoted in various print media and blogs.   Prior to his appointment as the inaugural Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, Professor Dodson held the James Edgar Hervey Chair in Litigation. Before joining UC Hastings, Scott held a permanent faculty appointment at William & Mary Law school from 2009-2012 and at the University of Arkansas School of Law from 2006-2009. Professor Dodson teaches courses in Civil Procedure, Civil Litigation Concentration, Federal Courts, Comparative Civil Procedure, and Conflict of Laws.   To learn more about Professor Dodson and to access the list of his publications, please follow the link to his bio page at UC Hastings by clicking here.   To learn more about Professor Dodson’s book, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, please click here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Scott Dodson   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

In this episode, Johanna and Nathan are joined by Tezira Abe to discuss non-revenue/Olympic sport in US higher education and the racist dynamics that shape American college athletics. Tezira was the first Black athlete on the University of Texas Austin women's golf team and a recent graduate of the University of Michigan law school. The episode explores the racist culture of golf inside and outside of universities and the myriad challenges confronting campus athletic workers, whether or not they produce significant revenue for universities. It concludes with a discussion of college sport during the pandemic, including Tezira's efforts to steer the University of Texas in a more ethical direction, the current #WeAreUnited and College Athlete Unity movements, and the failure of the mainstream media to acknowledge the centrality of Black leadership to both current and historical efforts to produce a more just model of college sport. You can find a discussion of one of the racist incident's Tezira experienced at the University of Texas here. You can find the article she wrote for the Michigan Law Review on NCAA liability for concussion-related injury here. You can find Billy Hawkins' book The New Plantation here.   For a transcription of this episode, please click here. (Credit @punkademic) After listening to the episode, check out our most recent pieces on the college football: "Canceling the College-Football Season Isn't Enough" published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. “'We are being gaslit': College football and Covid-19 are imperiling athletes” in The Guardian “Canceling the college football season is about union busting, not health” also in The Guardian __________________________________________________________________________ As always, please like, share, and rate us on your favorite podcast app, and give follow us on Twitter or Instagram. @Derekcrim @JohannaMellis @Nkalamb @EndofSportPod www.TheEndofSport.com

In this edition of the Jus Cogens Podcast, we revisit basic assumptions and conceptual foundations of customary international law as it develops and applies. Professor Monica Hakimi of Michigan Law presents her case to let go of the rulebook theory of understanding CIL through her article "Making Sense of Customary International Law", published in the Michigan Law Review and later debated during Opinio Juris's Customary International Law Symposium. Link to Opinio Juris Symposium: http://opiniojuris.org/2020/07/06/symposium-on-hakimis-making-sense-of-customary-international-law/ Link to Professor Hakimi's Article :https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3627905 Social Media: Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/jus-cogens-podcast, Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jus-cogens-the-international-law-podcast/id1432684061 Youtube - http://bit.ly/JCLawPodcast Twitter : https://twitter.com/JCLawPodcast Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/JCLawPodcast linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/company/juscogenspodcast

In 1957, an English doctor was accused of killing his patients for their money. The courtroom drama that followed was called the "murder trial of the century." In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll describe the case of John Bodkin Adams and its significance in British legal history. We'll also bomb Calgary and puzzle over a passive policeman. Intro: In 1959, James Sellers proposed installing microphones in baseball bases. In the Strand, Henry Dudeney offered a puzzle about asparagus bundles. Sources for our feature on John Bodkin Adams: Patrick Baron Devlin, Easing the Passing: The Trial of Dr John Bodkin Adams, 2004. Sybille Bedford, The Trial of Dr. Adams, 1962. Percy Hoskins, Two Men Were Acquitted: The Trial and Acquittal of Doctor John Bodkin Adams, 1984. Kieran Dolin, "The Case of Dr. John Bodkin Adams: A 'Notable' Trial and Its Narratives," in Brook Thomas, ed., Law and Literature, 2002. Jonathan Reinarz and Rebecca Wynter, eds., Complaints, Controversies and Grievances in Medicine: Historical and Social Science Perspectives, 2014. Russell G. Smith, Health Care, Crime and Regulatory Control, 1998. Gail Tulloch, Euthanasia, Choice and Death, 2005. Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Munby, "Medicine and the Law of Homicide: A Case for Reform?", King's Law Journal 23:3 (December 2012), 207-232. Percy Hoskins, "Points: Dr John Bodkin Adams," British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 287:6404 (Nov. 19, 1983), 1555. "Trial of Dr. J. Bodkin Adams," British Medical Journal 1:5020 (March 23, 1957), 712-713. "Trial of Dr. J. Bodkin Adams," British Medical Journal 1:5021 (March 30, 1957), 771-772. "Trial of Dr. J. Bodkin Adams: Expert Evidence," British Medical Journal 1:5022 (April 6, 1957), 828-834. "Trial of Dr. J. Bodkin Adams: Expert Evidence Continued," British Medical Journal 1:5023 (April 13, 1957), 889-894. Daniel E. Murray, "The Trial of Dr. Adams," University of Miami Law Review 13:4 (1959), 494. A.W. Simpson, "Euthanasia for Sale?", Michigan Law Review 84:4 (February-April 1986), 807. J.E. Hall Williams, "The Report of the Tucker Committee on Proceedings Before Examining Justices (July, 1958: Cmnd. 479)," Modern Law Review 21:6 (November 1958), 647-652. Caitlin Mahar, "Roy Porter Student Prize Essay, 2012: Easing the Passing: R v Adams and Terminal Care in Postwar Britain," Social History of Medicine 28:1 (2015), 155-171. Peter Ranscombe, "Shipman and Bodkin Adams in the Dock," Lancet Psychiatry 2:11 (November 2015), e32. "Crown vs. Dr. Adams: A Majestic Trial in Old Bailey," Life 42:16 (April 22, 1957), 30-37. Amanda Poole, "Did Antrim's Notorious 'Doctor Death' Go to His Grave With 300 Murders on His Conscience?", Belfast Telegraph, May 21, 2013, 3. Joyce Galbraith, "What Happens When Doctors Play God ...," Irish Medical Times 40:14 (April 7, 2006), 28. Jeremy Laurance, "Serial Killers 'Attracted to Medical Profession,'" Independent, May 10, 2001, 10. Ian Starrett, "Ulster's Notorious 'Mercy' Killing Doc," Belfast News Letter, Feb. 2, 2000, 13. "Dr. John Bodkin Adams Is Buried, and So Is Answer to Patients' Deaths," Philadelphia Inquirer, July 22, 1983, C.18. "Hearing for Dr. Adams Opens," New York Times, May 21, 1957. "Dr. Adams -- One Month After Acquittal," New York Times, May 5, 1957. "Adams Acquitted," New York Times, April 14, 1957. Kennett Love, "Adams Case Due to Go to Jurors," New York Times, April 8, 1957. Kennett Love, "Murder Defense May Call Adams," New York Times, April 1, 1957. Kennett Love, "The Trial of Dr. Adams," New York Times, March 31, 1957. Kennett Love, "Dr. Adams' Trial Enters 2d Week," New York Times, March 25, 1957. Kennett Love, "Suicide Bid Cited in Poison Hearing," New York Times, Jan. 24, 1957. Kennett Love, "Aim of Addiction Linked to Doctor," New York Times, Jan. 23, 1957 Kennett Love, "Britain's Doctor's Plot Already a Classic Case," New York Times, Jan. 20, 1957. Kennett Love, "Unusual Request Linked to Doctor," New York Times, Jan. 19, 1957. Kennett Love, "Evidence Is Gone, Britons Testify," New York Times, Jan. 18, 1957. "Murder by Narcotic Addiction Is Charged to a British Doctor," New York Times, Jan. 15, 1957. Percy Hoskins, "Adams, John Bodkin (1899–1983)," Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Sept. 23, 2004. Listener mail: Wikipedia, "Before Present" (accessed April 25, 2020). Wikipedia, "Radiocarbon Dating" (accessed April 25, 2020). Erin Blakemore, "Radiocarbon Helps Date Ancient Objects -- But It's Not Perfect," National Geographic, July 12, 2019. Mindy Weisberger, "Nuclear Fallout Exposes Fake 'Antique' Whisky," Live Science, Jan. 27, 2020. David Williams, "Scottish Scientists Use Radioactive Isotopes From Old Nuclear Tests to Find Counterfeit Whisky. More Than 40 Percent of What They Tested Is Fake," CNN, Jan. 24, 2020. "Cal Cavendish, the 'Mad Manure Bomber,' Tells His Story," CBC News, May 7, 2015. Heath McCoy, "A Buzz From the Past," Calgary Herald, Jan. 31, 2009. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Chris Pallant. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

In this episode, Colleen Chien, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, discusses her article "The Second Chance Gap," which will be published in the Michigan Law Review. Chien begins by describing "second chance" laws, which give people convicted of crimes the potential for mitigating their punishment. She observes that many second chance laws are rarely applied, and asks why that happens. Based on empirical research, she identifies the features that make second chance laws more or less likely to be effective. And she reflects on what this can tell us about criminal justice policy. Chien is on Twitter at @colleen_chien. This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Scott Dodson, of UC Hastings College of Law, to discuss Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as Scott’s book on the legal legend, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Today, Aaron and Scott talk about R.B.G’s past, her stunning career, her amazing achievements, and her incredible impact on modern law.   A legal icon, R.B.G has had a profound impact on the way we think about everything from gender equality to civil procedure. Scott’s book is a collection of essays that draws together thoughtful contributors from a wide range of fields to provide a rich and compelling account of Justice Ginsburg’s career. In more than four decades as a lawyer, professor, appellate judge, and associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ginsburg has influenced the law and society in real and permanent ways. Aaron and Scott talk about how R.B.G has helped shape our world, discussing her past and exploring the historical contexts in which she pushed gender boundaries and broke barriers. Reliving Justice Ginsburg’s storied career, Scott and Aaron, touch on glass ceilings, equal protection, the Constitution and more.   An expert in civil procedure and federal courts, Scott has written more than eighty papers appearing in Stanford Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, California Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Northwestern University Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Vanderbilt Law Review, and several peer-reviewed journals, among others. He is the author of six books, including the one at the center of today’s conversation. His writings have been cited in more than twenty court opinions, including by the Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas Supreme Courts, and the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits; Professor Dodson also is a frequent news commentator, appearing on a variety of shows, and is quoted in various print media and blogs.   Prior to his appointment as the inaugural Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, Professor Dodson held the James Edgar Hervey Chair in Litigation. Before joining UC Hastings, Scott held a permanent faculty appointment at William & Mary Law school from 2009-2012 and at the University of Arkansas School of Law from 2006-2009. Professor Dodson teaches courses in Civil Procedure, Civil Litigation Concentration, Federal Courts, Comparative Civil Procedure, and Conflict of Laws.   To learn more about Professor Dodson and to access the list of his publications, please follow the link to his bio page at UC Hastings by clicking here.   To learn more about Professor Dodson’s book, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, please click here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Scott Dodson   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

In this episode, Ari Glogower, Assistant Professor of Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, discusses his article "A Constitutional Wealth Tax," which will be published in the Michigan Law Review. Glogower begins by explaining what a "wealth tax" is, and how it differs from an income tax. He explains why the constitutional requirement to apportion "direct" taxes among the states creates potential problems for the implementation of a federal wealth tax, and how the Supreme Court has addressed those concerns over time. And he explains how a "wealth integration" alternation could not only avoid those constitutional issues, but also show how they reflect a conceptual incoherence at the heart of the constitutional dispute. Glogower is on Twitter at @AriGlogower.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode...Professor Margaret Hannon, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Michigan School of Law discusses the all-important case brief, including the parts of the brief, how to brief a case and the relationship of the case brief to the court system.Some key takeaways are:1. Case briefs are personal to the person briefing them, no judgment2. Cases for law school are edited, briefs found on the internet might not reflect the edited version of a case in the case book.3. Reasoning is the "protein" of the case4. Stare Decisis means that courts must follow their own decisions and the decisions of courts above them.About our guest...Professor Margaret C. Hannon joined the Law School faculty in 2013 as a clinical assistant professor in the Legal Practice Program. She previously taught legal research, writing, and reasoning as a clinical assistant and clinical associate professor at Northwestern Law School, where she also served as the assistant director and interim director of the legal research and writing program. In recognition of her teaching, Professor Hannon received Northwestern's Dean's Teaching Award and Dean's Teaching Award Honorable Mention. Professor Hannon practiced law at Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP (now K&L Gates LLP). Her practice focused on labor and employment counseling and litigation, and the negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreements. She is an active member of the Legal Writing Institute. She is an active member of the Legal Writing Institute; in addition to presenting at its academic conferences, she is a member of the awards committee and a member of the editorial board for one of its journals, The Monograph Series. In addition, Professor Hannon is an associate editor for Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD, the journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors.Professor Hannon is an associate editor for Legal Communications & Rhetoric: JALWD, the journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors. She also is a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Legal Writing Section and the AALS Section on Teaching Methods. Professor Hannon is the co-author of Aspen Publishers' From Theory to Practice: Employment Discrimination Law (with Rachel Croskery-Roberts), and is under contract with Aspen Publishers to co-author From Theory to Practice: Employment Law (also with Croskery-Roberts). Professor Hannon received her BA from Binghamton University, cum laude, and her JD from Michigan Law, where she was a notes editor for the Michigan Law Review.You can learn more about Professor Hannon at https://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=mchannonYou can follow Professor Hannon on twitter @mch_tweets As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on

In this episode, Jeffrey Bellin, Professor of Law and University Professor for Teaching Excellence at William & Mary Law School, discusses his paper "Fourth Amendment Textualism," forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review. Bellin begins by exploring the problems with current Fourth Amendment “search” jurisprudence and its reliance on Katz v. United States’ amorphous 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test. He notes that current Fourth Amendment doctrine is nonintuitive and unclear for both state actors and the general public, and recommends, instead, a textualist approach. He expounds upon the approach, defining “search” in an intuitive manner, as well as offering definitions for the remaining applicable textual components of the Fourth Amendment, “their” and "persons, houses, papers, and effects," and discusses how such an approach would work in the twenty-first century. He concludes by discussing why this approach might be an improvement, and what scholars, lawyers, and the courts should take away from his proposal. Bellin is on Twitter at @BellinJ.This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Goodwin's Chairman David Hashmall sits down with Trevor W. Morrison, the Dean and Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, to talk about leading one of the world's top law schools, the value of a law degree, and the leaderships skills that every new lawyer should focus on. Prior to his current role, Dean Morrison was the Liviu Librescu Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, where he was also faculty co-director of the Center for Constitutional Governance and faculty co-chair of the Hertog Program on Law and National Security. Before that, he was on the faculty of Cornell Law School. Dean Morrison spent 2009 in the White House, where he served as associate counsel to President Barack Obama. Drawing on both his scholarship and work experience, he has developed particular renown for his expertise in constitutional law as practiced in the executive branch. Dean Morrison's research and teaching interests are in constitutional law (especially separation of powers and federalism), federal courts, and the law of the executive branch. His scholarship has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, among others.

https://www.gofundme.com/Chris-Levels-first-Missionary-trip 3-4    News/Audio clips 3:33  The Edwards Notebook (bottom of every hour) 4-5    Alex Newman - Alex Newman is an American journalist and consultant who writes about economics, finance, banking, business, and politics for diverse publications in the United States and abroad. He studied journalism, economics and political science at the University of Florida.  In addition to his own consulting firm, Alex has worked in market research, marketing, strategy, research, information gathering and consulting for international companies, non-profit organizations and various political campaigns. He is also the co-author of a book exposing some of the problems with today's public education system. 5-6      Ellis Washington - Ellis Washington is a former staff editor of the Michigan Law Review (1989) and law clerk at the Rutherford Institute (1992). Currently he is an adjunct professor of law at the National Paralegal College and the graduate school, National Jurisprudence University, where he teaches Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, American History, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure, Contracts, Real Property, and Advanced Legal Writing, among many other subjects.Washington's latest law review articles include: "Nigger Manifesto: Institutional, Intellectual, Ideological Racism inside the American Academy" , and "Social Darwinism in Nazi Family and Inheritance Law" (2011).  

https://www.gofundme.com/Chris-Levels-first-Missionary-trip 3-4    News/Audio clips 3:33  The Edwards Notebook (bottom of every hour) 4-5     Alex Newman - Alex Newman is an American journalist and consultant who writes about economics, finance, banking, business, and politics for diverse publications in the United States and abroad. He studied journalism, economics and political science at the University of Florida.  In addition to his own consulting firm, Alex has worked in market research, marketing, strategy, research, information gathering and consulting for international companies, non-profit organizations and various political campaigns. He is also the co-author of a book exposing some of the problems with today's public education system. 5-6      Ellis Washington - Ellis Washington is a former staff editor of the Michigan Law Review (1989) and law clerk at the Rutherford Institute (1992). Currently he is an adjunct professor of law at the National Paralegal College and the graduate school, National Jurisprudence University, where he teaches Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, American History, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure, Contracts, Real Property, and Advanced Legal Writing, among many other subjects.Washington's latest law review articles include: "Nigger Manifesto: Institutional, Intellectual, Ideological Racism inside the American Academy" , and "Social Darwinism in Nazi Family and Inheritance Law" (2011).  

paypal.me/politicsproprophey 3-4    News/Audio clips 3:33  The Edwards Notebook (bottom of every hour) 4-5     Alex Newman - Alex Newman is an American journalist and consultant who writes about economics, finance, banking, business, and politics for diverse publications in the United States and abroad. He studied journalism, economics and political science at the University of Florida.  In addition to his own consulting firm, Alex has worked in market research, marketing, strategy, research, information gathering and consulting for international companies, non-profit organizations and various political campaigns. He is also the co-author of a book exposing some of the problems with today's public education system. 5-6      Ellis Washington - Ellis Washington is a former staff editor of the Michigan Law Review (1989) and law clerk at the Rutherford Institute (1992). Currently he is an adjunct professor of law at the National Paralegal College and the graduate school, National Jurisprudence University, where he teaches Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, American History, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure, Contracts, Real Property, and Advanced Legal Writing, among many other subjects.Washington's latest law review articles include: "Nigger Manifesto: Institutional, Intellectual, Ideological Racism inside the American Academy" , and "Social Darwinism in Nazi Family and Inheritance Law" (2011).