Podcasts about michigan law school

Sarah Longwell is joined by Leah Litman, professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, to discuss the Supreme Court's troubling shift toward partisanship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's ideological battles, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's decision to openly criticize the Court's Trump-friendly rulings. Can anything fix the Supreme Court? Litman shares solutions—and why she thinks it's past time to get angry. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code ASKGEORGE at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod #sponsored Upgrade your wardrobe and save on @trueclassic at https://trueclassic.com/ASKGEORGE! #trueclassicpod #sponsored

How can a simple shift in mindset unlock the potential within your team? In this episode, Kevin sits down with Phillip B. Wilson to discuss the power of four key leadership mindsets that can help leaders not only improve their effectiveness but also inspire exceptional performance in others. These include believing in your impact, believing in yourself, believing in others, and believing in your relationships. Kevin and Phil also explore topics such as overcoming the hero assumption, building psychological safety, and navigating the pitfalls of overconfidence. Listen For 00:00 Welcome to the Remarkable Leadership Podcast 00:46 How to Join Our Community 01:12 Introducing Flexible Leadership Book 02:04 Meet Phillip Wilson 03:06 From Law School to Leadership Consulting 04:02 Early Leadership Journey 05:18 Crisis Moments and Leadership Lessons 06:26 Studying Leadership and Approachable Leadership 07:29 Why Mindset Matters in Leadership 08:09 The Evolution of The Leader Shift Playbook 10:02 Leadership Lessons from Personal Experience 10:47 Understanding the Dunning-Kruger Effect 12:12 Mount Stupid and Leadership Overconfidence 13:29 Self-Awareness and Asking for Feedback 15:16 The Four Leadership Mindsets Overview 16:04 Believe in Yourself 17:34 Actor-Observer Bias and Leadership 18:34 Confirmation Bias and Self-Confidence 19:21 Confidence vs Overconfidence 20:51 Believe in Your Impact 22:30 Placebo vs Nocebo Leadership 24:10 Believe in Others 25:15 The Hero Assumption 25:42 Story of Daniel Kish 27:48 The Power of Belief from Others 29:03 Believe in Your Relationships 30:24 Three Core Questions of Psychological Safety 31:38 What Does Phil Wilson Do for Fun? 32:47 What Phil Is Reading Now 34:14 Where to Learn More About Phil and His Book 35:04 Your Leadership Call to Action Phillip's Story: Phillip B. Wilson is the author of The Leader-Shift Playbook: 4 Simple Changes to Score Big and Unleash Your Team's Potential. He is the founder of Approachable Leadership, where he and his team help clients thrive and create extraordinary workplaces. He is a national expert on leadership, labor relations, and creating positive workplaces. He is regularly featured in the business media, including Fox Business Network, Fast Company, Bloomberg News, HR magazine, and The New York Times. Wilson regularly delivers keynotes, workshops, and webinars and has been called to testify before Congress as a labor relations expert. He graduated magna cum laude from Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, and went on to earn his JD from the University of Michigan Law School. This Episode is brought to you by... Flexible Leadership is every leader's guide to greater success in a world of increasing complexity and chaos.  Book Recommendations The Leader-Shift Playbook: 4 Simple Changes to Score Big and Unleash Your Team's Potential by Phillip B. Wilson  Data: Harness Your Numbers to Go from Uncertain to Unstoppable by Mark O'Donnell, Angela Kalemis, Mark Stanley  Outgrow: How to Expand Market Share and Outsell Your Competition by Alex Goldfayn  Finish Big by Bo Burlingham  Like this? Becoming the Leader Your Team is Waiting For with Jonathan Raymond Nurturing a Team That Flourishes with Dan Pontefract Join Our Community If you want to view our live podcast episodes, hear about new releases, or chat with others who enjoy this podcast join one of our communities below. Join the Facebook Group Join the LinkedIn Group   Leave a Review If you liked this conversation, we'd be thrilled if you'd let others know by leaving a review on Apple Podcasts. Here's a quick guide for posting a review. Review on Apple: https://remarkablepodcast.com/itunes    Podcast Better! Sign up with Libsyn and get up to 2 months free! Use promo code: RLP  

We have here  at Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan Podcast - Peter & Jen Emerson - Director & Executive Producer of He Rules The World - as our guests. Welcome back #everyone to Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan Podcast - the podcast that inspires you to live a life of significance and success and to inspire others too. This week as part of our training we have an encouraging message from Peter & Jen Emerson designed to help you get to the potential you want to be and grow to the best of your abilities. Peter has worked with a number of jazz legends, including trombonist Bill Watrous, Yellowjackets drummer Will Kennedy, and Grammy-winning saxophonist Eric Marienthal. Peter has also worked closely with Broadway talent such as Jackie Burns 'Wicked,' Ruby Lewis 'We Will Rock You,' Janine DaVita 'Grease,' Rudy Cardenas 'American Idol,' Therese Curatolo 'Postmodern Jukebox,' and Kelley Jakle 'Pitch Perfect.' Peter - served as a pianist in the United States Marine Band and is a Gulf War Veteran, having served in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain during Operations Desert Shield/Storm. Jen graduated from Michigan Law School and the University of Notre Dame. She brings a wealth of corporate and legal knowledge to 'He Rules the World.'        For more of our  Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan trainings to be be part of our trainings - go to: https://www.virginiaprodanbooks.com/freedom-coaching Follow Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan Podcast at: https://open.spotify.com/show/7kHPeoAgbkAHCg2C6RApEZ - to hear encouraging & inspiring messages. -------Order your signed copy(s) of Virginia Prodan memoir #SavingMyAssassin - directly here: https://virginiaprodanbooks.com/product/book/ ------ Invite Virginia Prodan to speak at your events -: https://virginiaprodanbooks.com/invite-virginia/ ----- Donate to Virginia Prodan Ministries - here: https://www.virginiaprodan.com/donate/ ----- Subscribe to Virginia Prodan Youtube Channel - here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSlM_aAfLxHXTaI05Skv1WQ We love to hear from you; your comments or questions. Please share it with others. #network #podcast #film #events #training #training #leadership #coaching #people #community #australia #motivation #share #like #power #romania #america @frcdc @AllianceDefends @focusonthefamily @VirginiaProd

In this episode of Break Into Law School, host Shani Butts interviews Dean Sarah Zearfoss from the University of Michigan Law School about data transparency and the realities of law school admissions. Dean Zearfoss breaks down what applicants often misunderstand about rankings, employment outcomes, and acceptance rates. She explains how to interpret law school data accurately, emphasizes the importance of authenticity in applications, and shares why applicants should focus on fit instead of prestige. This episode empowers listeners to apply strategically and make informed decisions using facts—not fear.

The mistrial in the criminal case against former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr, who shot and killed Patrick Lyoya, has left the Lyoya family vowing to continue seeking justice through civil court. Some legal experts argue that police training and the difficulty of convicting officers played a key role in the hung jury decision. GUEST: Ekow Yankah, Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and holds the title of Thomas M. Cooley Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. He's also a professor of philosophy at the university. Looking for more conversations from Stateside? Right this way. If you like what you hear on the pod, consider supporting our work. Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wie wirkt sich die Wissenskrise – der fake news und fake science, des Misstrauens gegenüber der Wahrheit und den Fakten – auf die Rechtsprechung aus? Nicht nur die Corona-Pandemie, sondern auch der Klimawandel oder die Sicherheitspolitik zeigen, dass hier große Herausforderungen liegen. Die Dinge sind unsicher geworden – wie lässt sich dann aber verlässlich – und „richtig” – Recht sprechen? Wie geht das Bundesverfassungsgericht damit um? Und was bedeutet das heute für die rechtsstaatliche Demokratie? Anlässlich der Verfassungsfeier am 23. Mai 2025 in Lübeck sprach Susanne Baer. Sie war 12 Jahre lang Richterin des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, im Ersten Senat, und forscht und lehrt als Professorin für Öffentliches Recht und Geschlechterstudien an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Sie ist an der LSE London und der University of Michigan Law School, als Gast in Toronto, Linz, Luzern oder auch Rio de Janeiro sowie als Mitinitiatorin der Stiftung Forum Recht, des Law and Society Instituts und einer Law Clinic Grund- und Menschenrechte engagiert und befasst sich seit langem mit Recht als Praxis. Die Bundeskanzler-Willy-Brandt-Stiftung online: Webseite: www.willy-brandt.de/ Newsletter: www.willy-brandt.de/newsletter/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/bwbstiftung/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BundeskanzlerWillyBrandtStiftung/ YouTube: www.youtube.com/@BWBStiftung Bildnachweis: ©Olaf Malzahn

The Fox News Supreme Court is a political weapon, and it's being wielded to wreck what remains of American democracy. What happens if Trump declares martial law?  This week on Gaslit Nation, Andrea interviews Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, co-host of the award-winning Strict Scrutiny podcast, and author of the new book LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. This Court is a multi-decade effort by conservatives to seize power they couldn't win through democratic means. Litman warns about what the Fox News Court is up to. If you thought things were bad, we're staring down a term packed with cases that could fundamentally rewrite public education, religious liberty, and basic civil rights. Take Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. This case actually asks whether the Constitution requires states to allow religious public charter schools. Yes, you read that right: requires. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from funding religious education. But now, thanks to the conservative justices' persecution complex, where white Christian nationalism is the most oppressed identity in America, obviously, the Court may rule that denying public funding to religious schools is unconstitutional discrimination. Then there's the challenge to a Maryland school district's decision to include LGBTQ+ inclusive books in elementary schools. A group of religious parents is arguing that merely exposing children to stories with queer characters violates their religious freedom. If the Court agrees, it could hand conservative parents a veto power over what public schools teach, effectively outlawing inclusive education if it makes anyone clutch their pearls. What Litman makes clear is that these cases are about redefining public life, turning schools into vehicles for a theocratic agenda. And let's be honest: they're not talking about funding schools for Wiccans or the Church of Satan. This is about establishing a Christian nationalism dictatorship. Yes, it can happen here. Yes, it's happening here. But we are not powerless. Reform is not a fantasy. Term limits. Ethics rules. Court expansion. These are tools, if we find the courage to use them. Because democracy doesn't die in darkness. It's strangled in broad daylight by men in robes, funded by billionaires, and broadcast live on C-SPAN. And if we don't fight back? We're just letting them get away with it. EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: May 26 4pm ET – Book club discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Stride Toward Freeom: The Montgomery Story Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon.  Have you taken Gaslit Nation's HyperNormalization Survey Yet? Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community The recent storms have devastated so many in St. Louis, and the Urban League needs our help now more than ever. Please donate what you can to support their relief efforts and help communities rebuild: https://www.ulstl.com/#/   What's as gratifying as a Tesla Takedown protest? A Fox News Takedown protest! https://www.foxtakedown.com/

Being an advocate is important; so, what's the most effective process for becoming one? Patrick Barry, clinical assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School, takes a trip to find the answer. Patrick Barry is a clinical assistant professor and the director of digital academic initiatives at the University of Michigan Law School, as […]

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike Spivey and Anna Hicks-Jaco have a conversation with Sarah Zearfoss (also known as "Dean Z"), who has long led the admissions office at the University of Michigan Law School as Senior Assistant Dean and who hosts the admissions podcast A2Z with Dean Z. The group discusses using generative AI to write your essays vs. to research admissions advice (including asking ChatGPT a few admissions questions and critiquing its answers), the prospect of law schools using AI to evaluate applications, grade inflation (and how admissions officers saw it before open access to generative AI vs. now), application timing (and how early applications correlate to stronger admit rates without necessarily causing them), and more. Plus, Dean Z introduces a new question being added to Michigan Law's application this upcoming 2025-2026 cycle.You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode here.

In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has struck down the constitutional right to abortion, delivered a blow to the administrative state and ended affirmative action at universities. To Michigan law professor Leah Litman, it's not just conservative legal theory that's driving the Court's decisions. “The Supreme Court is running on conservative grievance, fringe theories and bad vibes,” Litman writes in her new book “Lawless.” We talk to Litman about the political and personal dynamics dictating judicial outcomes and review key cases before the Court. Guests: Leah Litman, professor of law, University of Michigan Law School; co-host Strict Scrutiny podcast; author, "Lawless:How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1157 - Leah Litman is a co-host of Crooked Media's Strict Scrutiny podcast and professor at University of Michigan Law School, and most recently the author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. We are pleased to welcome Professor Litman to discuss everything from what it's like to teach American Constitutional law 2025 to what the Supreme Court has in common with the Bluth family. Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, Leah Litman (2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

Over the past few years, many of us have noticed some (bad) vibes coming from the Supreme Court: sketchy decisions on a number of fronts, from presidential immunity to abortion, agency authority, and more. Today, we take a look at those vibes with one of our favorite guests: Professor Leah Litman, who is the author of the new book Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. Professor Litman joins us to talk about the Court's “Ken-surrection,” what another Trump term means for the Court, and her fabulous new book. Joining us is our very special guest: Leah Litman: Leah Litman is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, where she teaches and writes on constitutional law, federal post-conviction review and federal sentencing. She is the co-founder of “Women Also Know Law”—a searchable database of women and nonbinary people who have academic appointments in law—and is one of the co-hosts and creators of the popular Strict Scrutiny podcast, which focuses on the Supreme Court.Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Support the show

Jonathan Fombonne is the Deputy County Attorney and First Assistant County Attorney in Harris County, Texas. After graduating from Swarthmore College and the University of Michigan Law School, he started his career with a clerkship for Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Prior to his current appointment, he practiced law at law firms in Texas and New York, maintained a significant pro bono practice, and was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Jonathan, his wife Lauren, and their children live in Houston, Texas.

Larry is joined by professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the podcast ‘Strict Scrutiny', Leah Litman to discuss her forthcoming book ‘Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes', publishing on May 13th. They begin their conversation by talking about how the politicization of modern supreme court operations inspired her book, and shining a light on the history of the conservative right's use of Roe v. Wade as a stepping stone to further their patriarchal influence on the U.S's civil rights policies. This leads to a discussion about about voters who agree with this antiquated agenda and the individual Supreme Court justices who are motivated to implement it (24:24). After the break, Larry and Leah take a look at LGBTQ rights issues in relation to the Supreme Court and how the current administration is using grievance policies to dismantle the 14th amendment (33:18). They end the pod by talking about the ultimate governmental goals of the MAGA movement, and how Democrats can fight against those initiatives going forward (50:43). Host: Larry WilmoreGuest: Leah LitmanProducers: Chris Sutton and Brandy LaPlante Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Inheritance of Crises and Dysfunction by James J. MaiwurmInheritance of Crises and Dysfunction is a novel about the daunting challenges waiting at home and abroad for the next US Administration, the search for innovative responses and people asked to implement solutions. In addition to global and domestic political issues, the book grapples with the stubborn trauma that accompanies the loss of a spouse, the pain of moving, the mixed emotions associated with contemplating retirement, and the psychological need to remain relevant and connected as one grows older. It is designed to be thought-provoking as well as entertaining, and light enough to stir an occasional laugh or smile.The book opens on inauguration day in 2021. Through the eyes of the protagonist, "Salt Pepper," whose career included stints with the US Government and a Washington law firm, it portrays the deep disagreements and partisanship that divide our citizens from one another and their Government, and the US from the rest of the world. Salt thinks he has retired and moved to his ancestral farm near the foot of the Blue Ridge mountains in rural Virginia. Then an old acquaintance, who is about to become the Secretary of State in a new Administration, talks him into accepting a temporary clandestine diplomatic role that takes Salt and a new and able female colleague to the White House, London, Berlin, and Prague and into sensitive meetings with diplomats there and from the Middle East.With roots in history, current events, and human nature, the book provides insight into an inheritance of international disarray, toxic domestic politics, the harmful dissonance emanating from our battered small town and rural America, small business and manufacturing, as well as global clamor for US leadership. The crises and dysfunction are not imaginary; neither is the need for leader willing to grasp nettles and contribute to much-needed solutions, even when risky and inconvenient.James J. Maiwurm implemented an aggressive global vision as Chairman of one of the world's largest law firms, significantly expanding its footprint in the US, Europe, Asia, and Australia. He has served as Chairman and CEO of Kaiser Group International and on the boards of numerous organizations. Maiwurm grew up in small-town America, earned a degree in history at the College of Wooster in Ohio, attended the University of Michigan Law School, and has resided in the Washington, DC region for over 30 years. He remains happily married to his high school sweetheart and draws inspiration from his wonderful family.AMAZONhttps://maiwurmpubs.com/https://www.auctoremhouse.com/http://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/41725jmah.mp3   

Digital platforms now enable the near-instantaneous distribution of information, including misinformation and disinformation, to vast audiences. Disinformation refers to false or manipulated information deliberately created to deceive, whereas misinformation is inaccurate or misleading information that is sometimes shared without harmful intent. Professor Barbara McQuade—a former U.S. attorney and current professor of National Security Law at the University of Michigan Law School—explores these challenges and the legal weapons to combat them, noting that disinformation currently poses one of the biggest threats to national security.(Credits: General 1hr | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

Digital platforms now enable the near-instantaneous distribution of information, including misinformation and disinformation, to vast audiences. Disinformation refers to false or manipulated information deliberately created to deceive, whereas misinformation is inaccurate or misleading information that is sometimes shared without harmful intent. Professor Barbara McQuade—a former U.S. attorney and current professor of National Security Law at the University of Michigan Law School—explores these challenges and the legal weapons to combat them, noting that disinformation currently poses one of the biggest threats to national security.(Credits: General 1hr | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Phillip B. Wilson about the red flags that a leadership crisis is on the horizon for your organization. Phillip B. Wilson is the founder of Approachable Leadership, where he and his team help clients thrive and create extraordinary workplaces. He is a national expert on leadership, labor relations, and creating positive workplaces. Phil is the author of several books and articles, including Left of Boom (reached #2 on Amazon's Hot HR Books), The Approachability Playbook, and The Leader-Shift Playbook: 4 Simple Changes to Score Big and Unleash Your Team's Potential. He is regularly featured in the business media, including Fox Business Network, Fast Company, Bloomberg News, HR magazine, and The New York Times. Wilson regularly delivers keynotes, workshops, and webinars and has been called to testify before Congress as a labor relations expert. He graduated magna cum laude from Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, and went on to earn his JD from the University of Michigan Law School. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network!

Join Anchoring Truths Podcast hosts Garrett Snedeker & Daniel Osborne for a discussion of bringing Congress back to the center of our legal and political life. The backdrop for their discussion was their visit to the University of Michigan Law School in March for the annual Federalist Society Student Symposium. This year, the Symposium was titled "Congress: Reviving the Impetuous Vortex." Snedeker and Osborne offer observations about their visit to Ann Arbor as well as examine recent legal flashpoints through the lens of what the congressional role could or ought to be. They also discuss how the conference is a fantastic occasion for meeting students interested in the broader work of the James Wilson Institute.Videos of the panels Snedeker and Osborne discuss may be found on the Federalist Society's website.

BigTentUSA hosted a crucial conversation with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, historian and author, and Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst. Kimberly Atkins Stohr, senior opinion writer and columnist at The Boston Globe, moderated the conversation.Both Ben-Ghiat and McQuade are recognized for their expertise in analyzing and addressing challenges to democratic institutions and the rule of law. Together, they discussed connections between historical fascist tactics and the current threats facing America today. This timely discussion shed light on the strategies used to manipulate public perception, erode trust in democracy, and consolidate power—offered insights into how we can resist and respond.ABOUT THE SPEAKERSRuth Ben-Ghiat is a Professor of History and Italian Studies at New York University, specializing in the study of fascism, authoritarianism, and propaganda. She has authored several books, including the New York Times bestseller Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, which examines how illiberal leaders use propaganda, corruption, violence, and machismo to maintain power. In addition to her academic work, Ben-Ghiat publishes “Lucid,” a Substack newsletter focused on threats to democracy, and serves as an advisor to Protect Democracy.Barbara McQuade is a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School, her alma mater, where she teaches courses in criminal law, criminal procedure, national security, and data privacy. She is also a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, and a co-host of the podcast #SistersInLaw. From 2010 to 2017, McQuade served as U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. Ms. McQuade was appointed by President Barack Obama, and was the first woman to serve in her position. Earlier in her career, she worked as a sports writer and copy editor, a judicial law clerk, an associate in private practice, and an assistant U.S. attorney. She is also the Author of Attack From Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a senior opinion writer and columnist at The Boston Globe. She is also an MSNBC contributor, a frequent panelist on NBC's “Meet the Press,” and co-host of the weekly Politicon legal news podcast #SistersInLaw. Previously, Kim was the inaugural columnist for The Emancipator, a collaboration between The Boston Globe and Boston University's Center for Antiracist Research that reframes the conversation about racial justice and equality. Download her newest Podcast: Justice By Design HERE.Watch YouTube Recording Learn More: BigTentUSA This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

In 1969, Jane Mixer was attending the University of Michigan Law School when she was found dead just miles from her dorm. She had been shot twice in the head and strangled. Jane was the third of seven young women to be found dead in the area within two years. Investigators believed John Norman Collins was the serial killer responsible for several of the murders but couldn't prove he killed Jane. The case went cold until 2001 when the investigation was re-opened by testing DNA evidence collected more than 30-years earlier. “48 Hours" Correspondent Maureen Maher reports. This classic "48 Hours" episode last aired on 3/24/2007. Watch all-new episodes of “48 Hours” on Saturdays, and stream on demand on Paramount+. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Every year, millions of men, women, and children are trafficked worldwide – including right here in the United States. According to the Department of Homeland Security, human trafficking is defined as “the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.” In this episode, Craig is joined by returning guest, Bridgette A. Carr, clinical professor of law and co-director of the Human Trafficking and Immigration Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School, as they spotlight human trafficking. Craig & Bridgette discuss the different types of human trafficking, how it happens, how to recognize it, and what is being done to combat trafficking. Mentioned in This Episode: Archived Lawyer 2 Lawyer Episode: Legal Crackdown on Human Trafficking featuring Bridgette A. Carr

Every year, millions of men, women, and children are trafficked worldwide – including right here in the United States. According to the Department of Homeland Security, human trafficking is defined as “the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.” In this episode, Craig is joined by returning guest, Bridgette A. Carr, clinical professor of law and co-director of the Human Trafficking and Immigration Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School, as they spotlight human trafficking. Craig & Bridgette discuss the different types of human trafficking, how it happens, how to recognize it, and what is being done to combat trafficking. Mentioned in This Episode: Archived Lawyer 2 Lawyer Episode: Legal Crackdown on Human Trafficking featuring Bridgette A. Carr Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on In Black America, producer and host John L. Hanson, Jr. concludes his conversation with Michelle Adams, Professor of Law at The University of Michigan Law School, and author of Containment: Detroit, The Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North, discussing the epic social and legal struggle to integrate […] The post Michelle Adams, pt. 2 (Ep. 15, 2025) appeared first on KUT & KUTX Studios -- Podcasts.

This week on In Black America, producer and host John L. Hanson, Jr. begins a conversation with Michelle Adams, Professor of Law at The University of Michigan Law School, and author of Containment: Detroit, The Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North, discussing the epic social and legal struggle to integrate […] The post Michelle Adams, pt. 1 (Ep. 14. 2025) appeared first on KUT & KUTX Studios -- Podcasts.

Andrew Robb joins host Dan Ambrose to share his remarkable journey from aspiring opera singer to aviation litigation specialist at his family's firm. After clerking for federal judges and working in Big Law, Andrew returned to Kansas City to join Robb & Robb, a firm renowned for handling catastrophic aircraft cases. He discusses his $100 million settlement in a helicopter crash case and a recent $116 million verdict following a three-month trial in New York. On April 8, Andrew will break down the $100 million settlement case for a TLU webinar. At TLU Huntington Beach (June 4-7), he will present a workshop on aviation cases and a lecture on maximizing damages.Train and Connect with the Titans☑️ Andrew Robb | LinkedIn☑️ Robb & Robb LLC ☑️ TLU Beach☑️ Trial Lawyers University☑️ TLU On Demand Instant access to live lectures, case analysis, and skills training videos☑️ TLU on X | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode SnapshotAfter studying vocal performance at Carnegie Mellon, Andrew switched to pre-law and later attended the University of Michigan Law School.Andrew clerked for federal judges for two years before joining Big Law in New York City.In March 2020, Andrew and his wife, Brittany, joined his parents' firm, Robb & Robb, where he specializes in aviation cases.The firm represented Kobe Bryant's widow, Vanessa Bryant, in her litigation against Los Angeles County following his death in a helicopter crash.Andrew helped secure a $100 million settlement in a helicopter crash case after refusing earlier offers that would have set records.He recently won a $116 million verdict after a three-and-a-half-month trial in New York Supreme Court.Andrew emphasizes relentless preparation, strategic depositions, and the willingness to go to trial as keys to maximizing results.Produced and Powered by LawPods

We discuss that Americans should prize truth over tribe. A lot of disinformation is hiding behind the First Amendment – using the right to free speech to tell lies. The muddy media and information ecosystem is turning us against our neighbors.   Barb's civic action toolkit recommendations are:  Meet people in real life because when we know them it's harder to vilify them  Get accurate election-related information from your secretary of state's office   Barbara McQuade is a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, co-host of the podcast #SistersinLaw, and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Her first book is Attack From Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America. We discuss the dangers of disinformation and how we can defeat it.     Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Discover new ways to #BetheSpark:  https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark    Follow Mila on X:  https://x.com/milaatmos    Follow Barbara on X:  https://x.com/barbmcquade    Read Attack from Within:  https://bookshop.org/p/books/attack-from-within-how-disinformation-is-sabotaging-democracy-and-the-rule-of-law-barbara-mcquade/20068804?aid=11259&ean=9781644213636&listref=books-we-re-reading-in-2024    Sponsor:  Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight  Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Barbara McQuade Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

The Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases involving claims that an agency official is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, litigants can face an uphill climb to obtain meaningful relief. This state of affairs arguably has a serious impact on the incentive to bring these kinds of lawsuits going forward. This webinar will discuss the future of presidential removal power litigation in light of Collins, as well as related questions about the Court's understanding of the presidential removal power more generally and how private litigants can continue to bring these claims within the framework of Collins.Featuring:Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law CenterEli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP(Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School

A federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump's order to freeze federal grants and loans on Tuesday, as Medicaid and other programs experienced interruptions causing chaos and confusion. The Trump administration's directive could halt trillions of dollars in federal funds while agencies are directed to ensure financial assistance doesn't conflict with administration ideology. California's Attorney General and 22 other states have sued to stop the freeze, saying it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. We'll talk about what could be affected by the funding order, which is halted until at least Monday, the legality of Trump's action, and the efforts to fight it. Guests: Samuel R. Bagenstos, professor of law, University of Michigan Law School; former general counsel, White House Office of Management and Budget Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer, Slate magazine Marisa Lagos, politics correspondent, KQED, co-host of KQED's Political Breakdown

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians say it will keep road access open for now on tribal land. The announcement comes in a dispute with a nearby town over easements to non-Native homeowners on tribal land. Tribes are advising members of their constitutional rights after reports that Native people are among those being questioned and detained by ICE agents in ramped up immigration raids. GUESTS Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians), law professor at the University of Michigan Law School and author of the “Turtle Talk” blog Danielle Kaeding, reporter with Wisconsin Public Radio State Sen. Theresa Hatathlie (Diné/D-AZ-Coal Mine Mesa) Thomas Badamo (Nansemond Indian Nation), Nansemond tribal council treasurer

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco has a discussion with two Spivey consultants—Joe Pollak, former Associate Director of Admissions at the University of Michigan Law School, and Nathan Neely, former Director and Associate Director of Admissions at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Law and The University of Houston Law Center—all about the waitlist process. They talk about which applicants law schools waitlist and why, how law schools use their waitlists, how many people they typically put on the waitlist, the timeline of the waitlist process, what factors law schools consider when they evaluate their waitlists, strategy for getting admitted from the waitlist, common mistakes, best practice, factors that go into your chances of admission, tips for visiting a law school while you're on their waitlist, ways that the law school waitlist process has changed over the last few years, and much more. We mentioned a few blog posts in this episode, including "How to Write a Law School Letter of Continued Interest" (outline included), "What's the difference between a law school 'waitlist' vs. 'hold' vs. 'hold tight email'?" and "Justin Ishbia — Last WL Admit to Successful Major Donor" (podcast). You can find the previous episodes in our deep dive series here: Personal Statement Deep Dive Experience/Perspective Essay Deep Dive Resume Deep Dive Addendum Deep Dive "Why X" Essay Deep Dive Nathan and Joe's full bios are here. You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode below. You can read a full transcript of this episode here.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

This week Ivy Slater, host of Her Success Story, chats with her guest, Jessie Gabriel. The two talk about communicating company values, overcoming the fear of using one's voice, and the critical importance of building a supportive team. Jessie shares how her firm evolved from a "by women for women" brand to an inclusive space appealing to clients of all genders. In this episode, we discuss: How authenticity shapes leadership What inspired Jessie to start her own business How managing a team presents unique challenges and rewards How entrepreneurship fosters personal growth and self-discovery Why community support is vital for entrepreneurs   Jessie Gabriel is the founder of All Places, a champion for women, and a prominent voice on the role of capital ownership and control in achieving gender equity. Raised by a single working mother in Southern California, Jessie's success came with a deep appreciation of how gender norms and unequal access to capital contribute to a systemic lack of opportunities for women-identifying entrepreneurs and executives. Jessie's personal vision and passionate advocacy are fueled by the desire to create true change–All Places is the culmination of her expertise and ethos, a space for women to formulate businesses of all kinds, receive trusted legal and strategic guidance, and ultimately cultivate long-term financial success. Jessie started her career in economics, working first at a consulting firm before moving to a major think tank. As a lawyer, she has worked at some of the country's most prestigious firms, including Cravath, Swaine & Moore and BakerHostetler, where she was the youngest woman to lead her own team and launched the firm's Investment Funds practice. Her clients have ranged from Fortune 10 companies to trailblazing pre-seed startups, and have included numerous women-founded private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds. In 2020, she stepped down as an equity partner to launch All Places. Jessie serves as an advisor to First Women's Bank, Mercer regarding their Leap mandate, and Turning Rock Partners (a women-led private credit fund managing over $1b in assets), and sits on the Boards of the New America Alliance, an organization that advocates for the Latinx asset management community, and New Destiny Housing, which builds permanent, beautiful, affordable housing for families that have survived domestic violence. Jessie received her B.A. in economics from Dartmouth College and her J.D. cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif, won the Campbell Moot Court Competition, and served as Executive Editor of the Michigan Journal of Race and Law.   https://www.all-places.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessiegabriel/    

What's the silent threat that could derail your independence in midlife? We're breaking down why bone health is key to your long-term well-being.In this episode, I'm joined by Jen Lanoff, a nurse practitioner with a passion for women's health, to explore the critical connection between menopause and bone health. We uncover the rapid decline in bone density during menopause, why early screening with DEXA scans is crucial, and how hormone therapy can make all the difference.Jen shares her journey from public defender to nurse practitioner and explains why she's on a mission to empower women with actionable steps to protect their health and quality of life. We also dive into the nuances of osteoporosis treatments, from the benefits of anti-resorptives and anabolics to practical lifestyle modifications.If you've ever wondered how to interpret a DEXA scan, what medications are truly effective, or why bone health impacts everything from mobility to longevity, this conversation is packed with evidence-based insights. Jen's relatable approach and dedication to patient care make this episode both educational and empowering.Whether you're entering menopause, supporting someone in midlife, or just want to better understand your body, you won't want to miss this deep dive into maintaining health and independence.HighlightsHow menopause accelerates bone density lossThe essential role of estrogen in preventing osteoporosisWhy early DEXA scans can be life-changingBusting myths about osteoporosis prevention and treatmentProactive steps to maintain health and independenceSubscribe, like, and comment to join the conversation about thriving in midlife. Let's prioritize your health together!Jennifers Bio:Jennifer Lanoff, WHNP-BC, MSCP, JD, is a board-certified Women's Health and Gender-Related Nurse Practitioner. She currently has a GYN-only practice at Reiter, Hill and Johnson, an Advantia Practice, and sees patients in their Washington, DC, Chevy Chase, MD, and Falls Church, VA offices, where she focuses on menopause, osteoporosis, complex sexual health disorders, pelvic floor dysfunction, incontinence, hypoactive sexual desire disorder, persistent genital arousal disorder, and other vulvovaginal disorders such as vulvodynia, lichen sclerosus, and genitourinary symptoms of menopause (GSM) in addition to well-woman exams and related care. Jennifer has a passion for gynecological health and well-being at all stages of life. She is a Menopause Society (formerly NAMS) Certified Provider and currently serves as the Chair of the Menopause Society Education Committee, in addition to being on the Trustee Nominating Committee and a peer reviewer for the Menopause Journal. She also serves on Ms. Medicine's Physician Executive Group, The Body Agency's Medical Expert Board, and on the National Menopause Foundation's (NMF) Medical Advisory Committee (MAC). She is a member of The Menopause Society, The International Menopause Society, the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Urogynecology Society, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the Society for Family Planning (SFP).Jennifer completed her undergraduate studies at Stanford University, receiving her MSN at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, and her Women's Health Nurse Practitioner degree from Georgetown School of Nursing. Prior to entering the medical field, Jennifer earned a law degree from the University of Michigan Law School and was a trial and appellate attorney for over 20 years at the Public Defender Service...

President-elect Trump has announced that entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead a new Department of Government Efficiency “to cut the federal government down to size.” In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month, Musk and Ramaswamy promised DOGE would yield “a drastic reduction in federal regulations” that would pave the way for “mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy.” So far, however, there are questions about the specifics of how the new president would nullify thousands of regulations.Hon. Susan Dudley discusses what the future of DOGE may look like in an article for Forbes and a second piece in the Wall Street Journal. In addition, Prof. Nicholas Bagley discusses DOGE in his article for The Atlantic.Please join us on December 19 at 3 PM EST, as this panel will provide a practical overview of how DOGE might operate to reduce regulations, and the opportunities and challenges it will face.Featuring: Hon. Susan Dudley (Moderator), Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityProf. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Christopher Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

This is the final episode of six in the special “Symposium Edition Podcast” of STLR Conversations. We are sharing the recordings of our symposium on “Judging Science,” which explores how the judiciary assesses and incorporates scientific and expert testimony in the US legal system.    Today, we are listening to Professor Shari Diamond from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and Professor Richard Lempert from the University of Michigan Law School present on “How Experts View the Legal System's Use of Scientific Evidence.” Their work will be published in the upcoming Vol. 26 No. 2, “Symposium Edition,” of the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review in the spring.

In this final episode of the Juwan Deering Wrongful Arson Conviction Case, we learn even more allegations of investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct. We find out what evidence the independent investigator found indicating that Deering's rights were violated and who was allegedly responsible for those actions. In addition, we uncovered new court documents for a civil suit that sheds new light on some of the undisclosed witness testimony and offers an alternative plausible theory of how the fire started.  We also remember the victims of this horrific tragedy: Taleigha Dean, Age 10; Craig Dean, Age 8; Aaron Dean, Age 7, Eugene Dean, Age 5, and Michelle Frame, Age 11.  Special thanks to the University of Michigan Law school for providing the court transcripts for the original Juwan Deering Trial.  The National Registry of Exonerations is a project of the Newkirk Center for Science & Society at University of California Irvine, the University of Michigan Law School and Michigan State University College of Law. It was founded in 2012 in conjunction with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The Registry provides detailed information about every known exoneration in the United States since 1989—cases in which a person was wrongly convicted of a crime and later cleared of all the charges based on new evidence of innocence. The Registry also maintains a more limited database of known exonerations prior to 1989. You can support their mission to help fight wrongful convictions here: https://funraise.org/give/National-Registry-of-Exonerations/49d88db1-4a88-433c-a0ab-3a4453535ba8/ Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  For a complete list of sources used, please see Episode 38. Below are additional sources used this week: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_22-cv-11809/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_22-cv-11809-4.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_22-cv-12973/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_22-cv-12973-1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.363716/gov.uscourts.mied.363716.49.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.363716/gov.uscourts.mied.363716.53.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.363716/gov.uscourts.mied.363716.56.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.363716/gov.uscourts.mied.363716.71.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.363716/gov.uscourts.mied.363716.87.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.363716/gov.uscourts.mied.363716.91.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.363716/gov.uscourts.mied.363716.128.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64868582/deering-v-oakland-county/ https://thecountypress.mihomepaper.com/articles/courser-attorney-moves-to-have-case-tossed/ https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/28006/u-m_innocence_clinic_prods_oakland_prosecutor_to_look_into_2006_metro_detroit_conviction https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2021/05/14/juwan-deering-arson-oakland-county-prosecutor-jail-informantsf/5071835001/ https://youtu.be/vLu-lil21IE?si=f-_clC2Y8wknYriM https://www.youtube.com/live/niu2qkygKUA?si=gxtceGpXNwjMiXVq  

This week we continue our coverage of the Juwan Deering wrongful conviction. Juwan Deering was a Michigan man accused of setting a fatal fire that killed 5 children in Royal Oak Township, Michigan. Deering was convicted based on now-debunked arson investigation myths but that isn't the only reason he was convicted. The prosecutor in the case stands accused of some shocking misconduct and we get into it in this episode. Could it be that political motives pushed a prosecutor violate ethics standards to secure a conviction in a mass murder that had been languishing for 6 years? We'll tell you what he's accused of doing but we can only make guesses at his motives for these alleged actions.  Special thanks to the University of Michigan Law school for providing the court transcripts for the original Juwan Deering Trial.  The National Registry of Exonerations is a project of the Newkirk Center for Science & Society at University of California Irvine, the University of Michigan Law School and Michigan State University College of Law. It was founded in 2012 in conjunction with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The Registry provides detailed information about every known exoneration in the United States since 1989—cases in which a person was wrongly convicted of a crime and later cleared of all the charges based on new evidence of innocence. The Registry also maintains a more limited database of known exonerations prior to 1989. You can support their mission to help fight wrongful convictions here: https://funraise.org/give/National-Registry-of-Exonerations/49d88db1-4a88-433c-a0ab-3a4453535ba8/ Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  For a complete list of sources used, please see Episode 38. Below are additional sources used this week: https://catherinebroad.blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/March-27-2022-Article.pdf https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674370505001303#:~:text=Taken%20together%2C%20these%20studies%20show,not%20make%20that%20memory%20reliable. https://www.wxyz.com/news/oakland-co-prosecutor-uncovers-ethical-violations-in-deadly-arson-case-conviction https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/05/14/prosecutor-townsend-whitmer-kidnap-ethics/5094269001/

Juwan Deering was charged and convicted for setting a fire at a home that killed five children. However, investigators based their determination of how the fire began on now-debunked arson investigation myths. Juwan Deering was seen by investigators and the court system in a negative light and as a result he did not receive a fair trial nor did investigators behave in an ethical manner in prosecuting the case. Find out all the details of Juwan Deering's case on Crime to Burn.  Special thanks to the University of Michigan Law school for providing the court transcripts for the original Juwan Deering Trial.  The National Registry of Exonerations is a project of the Newkirk Center for Science & Society at University of California Irvine, the University of Michigan Law School and Michigan State University College of Law. It was founded in 2012 in conjunction with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The Registry provides detailed information about every known exoneration in the United States since 1989—cases in which a person was wrongly convicted of a crime and later cleared of all the charges based on new evidence of innocence. The Registry also maintains a more limited database of known exonerations prior to 1989. You can support their mission to help fight wrongful convictions here: https://funraise.org/give/National-Registry-of-Exonerations/49d88db1-4a88-433c-a0ab-3a4453535ba8/ Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  Sources: Juwan Deering court transcripts provided courtesy of the University of Michigan law school. People of the State of Michigan v Juwan Knumar Deering No. 06-207873-FC https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=6042 https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2022/08/05/juwan-deering-lawsuit-fire-royal-oak-township/10246683002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2022/08/05/juwan-deering-lawsuit-fire-royal-oak-township/10246683002/ https://www.npr.org/2021/09/30/1041970362/juwan-deering-michigan-freed-wrongful-conviction-fire-children-deaths https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2021/09/30/juwan-deering-free-prison/5928691001/ https://murderpedia.org/male.D/d/deering-juwan.htm https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2021/08/31/prosecutor-vacate-life-sentence-man-convicted-fire-killing-five-kids-juwan-deering/5665134001/ https://www.chronline.com/stories/man-sentenced-to-life-for-fire-that-killed-five-children-freed-from-prison,273634 https://casetext.com/case/deering-v-oakland-cnty-3 https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/juwan-deering-exonerated-by-detroit-area-court-after-15-years https://www.wxyz.com/news/new-evidence-vindicates-man-convicted-of-fire-that-killed-5-children-decades-ago-in-royal-oak-township https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/09/man-wont-face-second-trial-after-wrongful-conviction-in-house-fire-that-killed-5-kids.html https://apnews.com/article/fires-fec10106eec4b2646a8b65608fe015d3 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_11-cv-10320/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_11-cv-10320-1.pdf https://www.foxnews.com/us/case-ends-man-wrongly-convicted-5-kids-deaths https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/22/conviction-sentences-dropped-for-house-fire-that-killed-5-kids/ https://casetext.com/case/deering-v-oakland-cnty-3 https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2008/20081211-c274208-93-274208-opn.html https://www.theoaklandpress.com/2004/04/06/reward-offered-in-arson-case-that-killed-5-children/ https://www.theoaklandpress.com/2006/08/24/killer-gets-life-without-parole/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2021/05/14/juwan-deering-arson-oakland-county-prosecutor-jail-informantsf/5071835001/ https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mi-court-of-appeals/1403179.html https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2021/09/21/oakland-county-judge-grants-new-trial-man-serving-life-fire-killed-5/5789185001/ https://www.frontpagedetectives.com/p/michigan-freed-prisoner-house-fire-child-killed  

In this episode of Money Tales, our guest is Amanda Heyman. Amanda went from journalism to a career in law, driven by a mission to serve the public interest and champion social justice. Then, life took a surprising turn when she and her husband saw a golden opportunity in fantasy soccer. Moving to a venture-backed business focused on growth and profit was a major pivot. Together, they co-founded Starting 11, a fantasy sports app that combined her husband's 30,000-hour passion for fantasy sports with Amanda's network and startup savvy. But stepping into the world of capitalism brought new challenges, like pitching for venture capital, raising funds, and weighing their financial goals against their principles. Amanda shares how she navigated this shift in mindset, balanced personal values with business ambition and managed the unique pressures of being in business with her husband. Amanda is co-founder and Managing Partner of Tundra Ventures, a pre-seed venture fund investing in companies focused on health, wealth and resilience solutions with 1) exquisite founder-market fit and 2) unique insight into untapped markets and overlooked end users. Prior to founding Tundra, Amanda spent four years as a Founding Partner at Lunar Startups, a Twin Cities-based accelerator designed to supercharge high-potential startup companies founded by diverse CEOs. Amanda created her own proprietary system of business milestones linked to a curated digital platform that helped 75 Lunar cohort companies create a strong foundation for scale. Amanda has taken her proprietary system to Tundra Ventures, where it forms the backbone of Tundra's founder support platform. In addition to her 10+ years of experience as an attorney for startups, Amanda is a seasoned entrepreneur. She co-founded and served as General Counsel for a venture-backed global sports technology company; prior to that she co-founded a boutique law firm focused on natural food startup companies. Amanda further developed expertise in the food and agriculture sphere as an international expert on organic agriculture for the United Nations in Mauritius, a Fellow in Practice at the Vermont Law School Center for Agriculture and Food Systems and a staff attorney at a national nonprofit law firm serving family farm businesses. Amanda has also handled FEMA appeals for Hurricane Katrina survivors, managed an online news network at a Boston digital media startup (acquired by MTV) and won awards for her newspaper reporting in Wisconsin and New Mexico. Amanda has served as an advisor and board member to various startup support organizations, including Forge North, The Nice Center at NDSU and Minnesota Cup. She was named a 2021 and 2020 Minnesota Rising Star by Super Lawyers/Thomson Reuters, a 2017 MN Cup High Tech Division Winner and a 2015 Women in Business award winner by the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. Amanda holds a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and earned a B.S. in Journalism and a Certificate in Environmental Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. After many years living near the best lake in Minneapolis, she currently resides in the Bay Area with her husband and young daughter.

J.P. Duffy is joined by Jeff Zaino, vice president of the AAA-ICDR's Commercial Division, to discuss the AAA's upcoming centenary and its enduring reputation as a trusted choice for resolving commercial conflicts across industries. The conversation delves into the AAA's significant milestones and accomplishments, highlighting its commitment to innovation, including its approach to AI and the recent appointment of Bridget McCormack as president and CEO. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we'll discuss the American Arbitration Association with Jeff Zaino, who's the vice president of the AAA's commercial division. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner based in New York that acts as both counsel and arbitrator in international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales in the DIFC courts in Dubai, where I previously lived and practiced. I routinely represent clients and arbitrations involving a range of issues and frequently sit as an arbitrator in commercial disputes as well. I also have the good fortune to be a member of the AAA's commercial division arbitrator roster, the ICDR panel, and I'm a member of the AAA-ICDR Life Sciences Steering Committee and a member of the ICDR Publications Committee as well. So I get to do a lot with the AAA, which is really a wonderful organization. As I mentioned, with me today is Jeff Zaino, who's the vice president of the commercial division of the AAA in New York. He oversees administration of the large, complex commercial caseload, user outreach, and panel of commercial neutrals in New York. He joined the association in 1990, and Mr. Zaino is dedicated to promoting ADR methods and services. He's also written and published extensively on the topics of electronic reform and ADR, including several podcasts with the ABA, talks on law, and corporate counsel business. And he's appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Bloomberg to discuss national election reform efforts and the Help America Vote Act. He was deemed a 2018 Alternative Dispute Resolution Champion by the National Law Journal and received awards for his ADR work from the National Academy of Arbitrators, Region 2 and Long Island Labor and Employment Relations Association. In 2022, Jeff received the Alicott Lieber Younger Committee of the Year Award for the New York State Bar Association Commercial and Federal Litigation Section. And in 2023, the Chairman's Award, NYSBA Dispute Resolution Section. So as you can tell, Jeff is a highly experienced, highly lauded arbitration expert, but we're really lucky to have his valuable insights today. So before we begin with some of the substance, let me just give a little bit of background on the AAA and the commercial division so that those that are less familiar have a little bit of information about what we're going to discuss today. The AAA is a non-profit alternative dispute resolution service provider headquartered in New York that administers arbitrations, mediations, and other forms of dispute resolution, such as ombudsperson and dispute avoidance training. It was founded in 1926 to provide an alternative to civil court proceedings, and that makes the AAA one of the oldest arbitral institutions in the world, as well as one of the largest, having administered over 11,553 business-to-business cases in 2023 alone, with a total value of over $19.1 billion. So that should give you a pretty good idea of the scope of what the AAA does. Notably, the AAA has several divisions that offer users substantial subject matter expertise. For instance, the commercial division, which Jeff heads, specializes in business-to-business disputes of all sizes, but has a particular expertise with large complex cases across a variety of industries, including accounting, communications, energy, entertainment, financial services, franchise, hospitality, insurance and reinsurance, life sciences, sports, and technology. There are also separate AAA divisions that focus exclusively on construction issues, consumer disputes, employment matters, government issues, healthcare, and labor disputes. Lastly, as many of our listeners will know, the AAA has a well-known international division, the International Center for Dispute Resolution, or what's colloquially known as the ICDR, that focuses on disputes that have an international component. Before we get into some of our recent developments, Jeff, if you could tell us a bit about what makes the AAA different than other arbitral administrators, I'm sure our audience would love to hear that.  Jeff: Sure. Hey, thanks so much, J.P., for having me today, and thanks for the kind words at the beginning. It's great to be here today. Well, you mentioned it. The AAA is the largest and oldest ADR provider in the world. We have over 700 staff worldwide and 28 offices, including one in Singapore. And we have a huge panel, and you're on that panel. We have 6,000 arbitrators on our panel, and we consider them experts in the industry. And we're really proud of our panel. And like you mentioned, we're hitting our 100th anniversary in 2026. And since then, when I started, I started in the 90s, like you mentioned, 1990. From 1926, when we were founded, to 1990, we did a million cases, one million cases. And then, since then, from 1990 until now, 2024, we hit 8 million, 8 million cases. So it's growing. And I feel that's because of AAA, AAA-ICDR. Again, we've been around for almost 100 years, and we keep on growing. And I feel that we took the A out of ADR. I mean, everyone says alternative dispute resolution, but I really think now it's, and you'll probably agree with me, J.P., that it's dispute resolution. It's something in our toolbox and it's not alternative any longer. And then another thing about us, a huge difference about AAA-ICDR is we're not for profit. That makes us unique in this space. Profit-based companies are a little bit different than what we are. We're not criticizing them, but we're unique in the sense that we work directly for the parties, not for the arbitrators.  J.P.: That's a really interesting stat, Jeff. Let me unpack some of that because I think, first off, if I understood that correctly, you said up until 1990, there were 1 million cases administered. Is that right?  Jeff: That's correct. We did 1 million cases from our founding, 1926, a year after the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. So we did 1 million when I came on board in 1990. And then from 1990 until now, we've done a total of 8 million. So we doubled that, or tripled it. It's been amazing how the growth that we've seen. And also during a pandemic, we saw a huge growth at AAA-ICDR.  J.P.: And Jeff, one thing that I think you're obviously very involved with the New York State Bar, and I've done quite a bit with the New York State Bar myself over the years. One thing that I noticed, and you just reminded me of this, was an uptick in submission agreements during the pandemic, by which I mean parties taking existing disputes for which there was no arbitration clause, drafting an arbitration clause for it to submit it and move it into arbitration. And I think some of that was a function of the recognition that disputes would founder if the courts were closed and that parties needed things done. Did you see that kind of growth during the pandemic of submission agreements as well?  Jeff: Absolutely. The courts were shut down, like you mentioned, for three to four months worldwide. And the ADR providers, like the AAA-ICDR, did not shut down. And we did have submissions, more submissions than we've ever seen. And usually it's only about, I would say, 2%, 3% of our caseload is submissions, but we saw the court systems. And I had, personally, I had over a billion dollar case, a bankruptcy case that came to us from Texas and it was mediated. We had two mediators, one in Connecticut and one in Texas. We had six parties, 40 people showed up on the Zoom, J.P., it was amazing. And that was a submission to AAA through the court system. The judge talked to the parties and said, listen, we're shut down. This is an important matter. Why don't you go to AAA? And so, yes, we did see submissions during the pandemic. I'm not sure if that's going to continue on. Most of our disputes are features of contract, as you know.  J.P.: Yeah. I mean, that's always going to be the case in arbitration, right? That the vast majority of cases will be subject to a pre-dispute arbitration clause. But I think it's really interesting when you see submission agreements like that, because I think it's a clear recognition that one, arbitration is a really valuable tool. And two, it's a real plus for the AAA and a real nod of confidence that those are submitted to AAA because that's parties taking something they know has to be figured out and saying, all right, AAA is the guy to do. I wanted to pick up, too, on that exponential growth of 8 million cases between 1990 and the present versus 1 million over the first, you know, what is that, 70-something years or 60-plus years?  Jeff: 60-plus years, absolutely, yeah. J.P.: Are there particular industries that you've seen significant growth in since the 1990 period that you were discussing, like between 1990 and the present? Are there particular industries that you are seeing more growth in or that you think there could be more growth in? Just be curious to get your views on that.  Jeff: Sure, sure. And my area of commercial, as you know, because you're on the commercial panel and the ICDR panel, is healthcare. And I know you're a big part of healthcare. Also, financial services. We've seen a huge growth in that in the last five years. We put together an advisory committee for financial services on insurance. And then also, as you probably know, consumer. We saw a big amount of consumer cases during the pandemic and even prior to the pandemic. And that's a big caseload. It's about 30% of our caseload at AAA-ICDR. But again, people criticize that sometimes and say, well, that's not fair to the consumer. They're forced into arbitration. But what I say, J.P., to law students and when I speak at events like this, I say, listen, we don't draft ourselves into contracts. AAA-ICDR does not do that. People draft us into contracts and we just try to make the process, we try to level the playing field. And we do a lot of consumer, but we do a lot of high-end commercial cases, as you know, a lot of international cases and things like that. But the two areas, I would say, a long way to answer to your question, J.P., is I would say healthcare and financial services, insurance, that's where we're seeing a lot of growth and also technology.  J.P.: The consumer aspect is one that is obviously very, very, very hot right now, given things like the mass arbitration rules and things like that. And we will probably touch on that in a bit, but it's a really valuable service to provide. And that's one thing that I think the AAA really does well. As you mentioned, it's a not-for-profit organization. It's not an organization that's out to make money off of consumer disputes. It's really there to help everybody resolve them. So something for everyone to keep in mind.  Jeff: The company bears the cost, not the consumer. And I hope people know that, that we're not out, like you said, we're not out to make a big buck on this. We're just trying to level a playing field and access to justice for these people.  J.P.: Yeah. And that's really what it is. At the end of the day, it's access to justice. And a lot of times the alternative is small claims court, which is not always a great choice. I've sat as an arbitrator in small claims court a few times, and I can tell you it's a great process when it works, but it can be a challenging process as well so  Jeff: Without a doubt.  J.P.: Always something to keep in mind. Yeah. Well, let's talk then about some of the recent developments because there have been quite a few. And as you mentioned, it's coming up on the centennial for the AAA-ICDR. And a lot has happened, obviously, in the 100 years of its existence, almost 100 years of its existence.  Jeff: Sure.  J.P.: And quite a few of those things are pretty monumental. And one of the biggest ones, I guess, is that in February 2023. Bridget McCormack took over as president and CEO of the AAA-ICDR from India Johnson, who was in that role for a lot of years. Bridget was previously the chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, if I'm correct, and was also a professor and associate dean at the prestigious University of Michigan Law School. So she brings a pretty extensive wealth of experience to the AAA. Now that she's been in that role for about a year and a half, how have things been different at the AAA-ICDR under Bridget's leadership?  Jeff: It's been wonderful. I mean, Bridget brings such life to the company right now. I mean, India Johnson was great. She put our house in order, our finances. but Bridget is now doing a wonderful job in getting out there. I'm not sure, J.P., have you met her yet?  J.P.: I have not had the pleasure of meeting her in person, but I'll sort of preview for our listeners that we are in the process of trying to get Bridget into our firm to talk to everyone about what the AAA-ICDR does and give sort of an insider's view for our partners.  Jeff: Oh, wonderful. She's such a dynamic speaker. If you go on YouTube, you'll see she speaks all the time. It's amazing. Whenever I ask her to speak at an event in New York, I feel bad about asking her because I know how busy she is, but she does agree. But I have to find a space in her calendar because if you see on LinkedIn, I know you're on LinkedIn too, J.P., and she is everywhere. It seems like every week she's speaking somewhere, very dynamic, and she embraces AI. And I know we're going to talk about AI a little bit, but also innovation. And she's been doing such a terrific job being the face of the AAA, and we needed that. India, again, did a wonderful job, but Bridget is out there and around the world doing international events, doing events here domestically. And it really, I think, is getting the word out there about ADR and about, well, I should say DR, sorry, dispute resolution, and also access to justice. Being a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan, doing a terrific job. And really, the people in the company are very excited. We have 700 plus employees, and we're excited with our new president. It really has been a great time with her.  J.P.: You know it's funny. The one thing I've universally heard from anyone who works there when I ask about Bridget is everyone says great energy, great leadership, and really, really, really strong presence, which is really wonderful to hear because you seem to be echoing that pretty strongly as well.  Jeff: Yeah, without a doubt. I mean, when she works a room, when she talks at an event, and it's great. We're forward-looking right now, big time. The AAA now is looking, AAA-ICDR, looking towards the future with innovation, with ODR, and we're going to talk about that, and with access to justice, which I love. And she's doing a terrific job.  J.P.: Well, that's great to hear. And I think we are going to talk about odr.com in just a second. But before we do that, I'd just be curious, because they may well be the same thing. But what would you say Bridget's greatest accomplishment is so far?  Jeff: I would say being the face of the AAA and embracing new ideas. For years, we didn't really, we moved kind of slowly. We embraced new ideas, but we moved slowly like a battleship turning around or an aircraft carrier turning around. We moved slowly. We're not doing that any longer. Bridget wants to move on quickly, which is great, and embrace things that are going on. And I think we're ahead of the curve on a lot of things, with acquiring ODR, with our embracing AI, with her ideas about innovation, access to justice. We are, I think, really ahead of the curve with respect to these areas, ahead of law firms, ahead of some of our competitors. And I attribute that to Bridget.  J.P.: That's really great to hear. That's really great to hear. And it's really hard with a large organization to be nimble. Exactly. I know we do that pretty well at Reed Smith, I think, too, but it's a challenge, and it does require great leadership in order to get everybody on board with that. So it's wonderful to hear that's happening at the AAA-ICDR, and you see it.  Jeff: Oh, yeah, without a doubt. And also, we're almost 100-year-old organizations, so you would think that we wouldn't be thinking about these innovation things in the future, but we are, which is terrific. We're an old organization, but not really. We're ready for the future.  J.P.: Well, let's talk about that future a bit because it's clear that there's a strong focus on that. And one of the first things that I noticed is the odr.com resourceful internet solutions acquisition. So for those that don't know anything about that, maybe you could fill the audience in and give us a bit of background about that one and what it's done for the AAA-ICDR.  Jeff: Sure. We just recently, a few months ago, acquired odr.com. It's a company that's been around for approximately 25 years. Online dispute resolution that can be completely customized for your needs for online dispute resolution. And they've been doing a wonderful job for many years. Okay. obviously much smaller than the AAA-ICDR, but they've been working with us. I'm not sure if you know this, J.P., but they've helped us with our no-fault business in New York. They help us set up our system initially years ago. So we've had a relationship with them for probably two decades with ODR. So we recently acquired them and we're working with them. Their most important area is right now is mediation. They have mediate.com and we're looking at  our mediation.org and combining those two. Okay. And we want to expand our mediation business. And again, I mentioned it a couple of times, access to justice. We want high volume cases. Okay. We do obviously high-end cases, high dollar cases, but right now we're seeing with odr.com, we can spread the business, we can grow the business and we can expand our mediation business. And that's what we're trying to do because mediation is growing. As you know, J.P., it's it mediation has grown tremendously over the last couple of decades. But now with ODR online dispute resolution, I mean, it's going to really grow, I think. So that's what that's why we acquired it. And, you know, Colin Rule, I'm not sure, J.P., if you've ever met Colin Rule. The head of ODR.com.  J.P.: I have not had the pleasure.  Jeff: Yeah, he's he's phenomenal. know if anyone that's listening to this podcast, you just Google Colin Rule. He's been in this space for many, many years and he's a phenomenal person. And I'm really excited about this acquisition. And I think we're going to work so well together.  J.P.: Jeff, just for people like me that are a little bit less savvy with how some of these things work technologically and sort of mechanically, is odr.com and mediate.com is a function of that, right? Or a part of that?  Jeff: Yeah, it's a part of it. Yeah. And I believe they have arbitration.com, but now it's going to be merged in with the AAA. And the platform of odr.com is going to be used for our mediation services at AAA for online mediation services.  J.P.: Okay. That's what I was getting at. So this is like a platform where users or parties and the mediator all log in, communicate with each other. Exchange their positions, and do everything that way. So is it correct to say it's sort of a virtual mediation platform?  Jeff: Yeah, without a doubt. And now the timing is perfect, J.P., because we just came off the pandemic about a couple of years ago, and we were seeing, as you probably know, as an arbitrator at AAA, we were doing thousands of virtual hearings arbitration and also mediation, and it worked. It really worked.  J.P.: Yeah. And that's really one of the true benefits that came out of the pandemic, in my view. Prior to the pandemic, I had always done certain aspects of cases virtually. And there was video conferencing was something that you could suggest, but that parties and frankly, arbitrators were not always that willing to embrace. But I think the pandemic really showed everyone that you can do things virtually. Efficiently, cost-effectively, and in a way that you don't need an in-person hearing for, and that it can be really successful. So I'm sure the timing has been right for odr.com and that acquisition. In terms of integrating it, what's the full timeline for getting it fully integrated, if you don't mind my asking?  Jeff: Sure. I mean, right now we're focusing on mediation. Okay. That's going to be our focus for the next several months. And then I think we're going to try to see if we can move this into arbitration also, because we're still seeing a lot of arbitrations, not a lot. I mean, I would say that 30% of our arbitrations are still being done in the virtual world. We're starting to see, and JP you've been at my Midtown office in Midtown Manhattan on 42nd Street, and we're starting to see about 60 to 70% capacity as an in-person for arbitration. But there's still a segment that wants to do it in the virtual world. And this is where odr.com comes into play. And right now it's, but the focus right now is mediation and working with our mediation team at the AAA-ICDR.  J.P.: Got it. Well, you know, it's funny. I have an employment partner who told me the odds of them ever doing an employment mediation below a certain value in person again are slim to none.  Jeff: Interesting.  J.P.: Yeah. And I think you guys have really hit the nail on the head with this.  Jeff: Well, with labor similar to employment, we're seeing almost 80% of labor cases now in New York City, I'm talking, are being done virtual, maybe even a little bit more than that. They got so used to doing it in the virtual world for labor cases, union management. It's interesting to see where we're going with this. But commercial type disputes, the type that you handle, J.P., we're starting to see more people coming back into in-person. However, we're not seeing the days of a witness flying in from Paris for one hour because we have all the technology at the offices, our offices around the country, the voice activated camera. So we don't need to ship in people for one hour. It's a waste of money.  J.P.: Yeah. And that's, you know, that's really the great thing that this technology allows for, which is, you know, I just did a, to mention the hearing space, Jeff, I just did a pretty large week-long hearing earlier in the year at the AAA's offices on 42nd Street. And it was great, but there were, you know, and I do, you know, myself prefer in-person for certain things, but, you know, during that hearing, we had witnesses that were exactly what you're describing, I mean, really only required to confirm a few issues or give, you know, a short cross examination and they were located in pretty diverse regions. Absolutely no reason to incur the time or expense or frankly, just the headache of bringing those people in from around the world for scheduling purposes and everything else.  Jeff: Sure.  J.P.: We did those, you know, we did those witnesses virtually and that is a real, that's a real benefit. You know, you sort of do that hybrid approach and you can save, it's way more efficient, It's way more cost-effective, and it is just easier from a scheduling perspective. So this is a really great development.  Jeff: Yeah, and J.P., have you noticed, I mean, when you were probably at my office on 42nd Street, we have now the big monitors. And I've noticed that arbitrators like yourself and advocates like yourself are using more technology in the rooms. We have these cupboards in our hearing rooms where the binders used to go, the big binders for exhibits and things like that. No longer am I seeing that. Most arbitrators are now using our, we provide iPads, we have the big monitors, and it seems like people are going away from paper, which is great too.  J.P.: Yeah, it's funny. I'm sort of like probably the last of the Mohicans where people really had to do things like mini books. Like when I was a real junior associate, we would have hearing bundles that were in mini book form and they were, you'd have 55 volumes and everything would be in there. I mean, there's sort of those nightmare stories where parties would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just pulling together the paper for a hearing. And that, you know, that to me always seemed a little bit crazy. In this day and age, it is totally unnecessary. I would much prefer to have everything electronically. And that hearing space really allows for that. So really, really great to hear that parties are embracing that because it's such a cost savings and it's an efficiency. You know, it just doesn't need to be the way it was.  Jeff: Sure.  J.P.: Well, let's talk then a bit about some of the AI stuff that you were mentioning, because I think that is really, I have to confess, I don't understand it as well as I should. I think most people, if they were being honest, probably have an inkling of what it does, but don't really know. I'd love to hear what the AAA-ICDR is doing with AI, because it's a really, really, really groundbreaking development.  Jeff: Absolutely. Well, if you Google Bridget McCormack, our president, she speaks on AI quite frequently and it really has embraced it. And how have we embraced that AAA? Well, she encourages the staff to use it. And we have, she's even recommended certain programs that we should use. But with respect to how are we using it with respect to running our business? Well, we have ClauseBuilder and you know about ClauseBuilder. It's a tool that was developed in 2013 where people can go online and develop a clause for arbitration. Now we have ClauseBuilder AI, which as opposed to going through various modules with the original ClauseBuilder, you can just type in, I want an employment clause. I want three arbitrators. I want limited discovery. And the clause builder AI will build that clause for you. That's something we just rolled out. Also for arbitrators, scheduling orders. We have an AI program right now for arbitrators where a scheduling order usually takes an arbitrator, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, J.P., usually about an hour to two hours after you do the preliminary hearing. Well, now AI reduces that time to probably a couple of minutes for an arbitrator. So we rolled that out. And we obviously were having discussions about low dollar cases, high volume cases. Can AI be used? And we're looking into that. We haven't rolled that out yet. It's not going to eliminate you, J.P., but it's something that we're looking at right now. And we are embracing it. I use it for various things. I'll give you an example. I use it for if I'm doing an educational program, I'll type in, you know, I'm doing a program on arbitration and discovery. Can you give me a good title for this program? I've been doing this for years. I've used a lot of different titles for programs, and it's wonderful to use AI for those purposes and for editing things. So I like the fact that our company embraces it. Some companies do not. Some law firms, as you know, J.P., do not embrace AI. And we had that case last year where I think an attorney, it wasn't arbitration, it was litigation, where he cited cases through AI that never existed.  J.P.: Yeah, that's actually happened more than once since then. And it's been kind of amazing to me. Yeah, it's funny. We as a law firm at Reed Smith have definitely embraced AI. We've got a person who's sort of C-suite level that addresses that and that heads that function up. And I know we are trying to bring it in much more for things that are sort of routine, that don't require necessarily true attorney time. And it is a real game changer. I mean, you know, anybody who doesn't get on board with AI is going to get left behind at some point because it is truly, truly the wave of the future, in my view.  Jeff: Oh, absolutely. And the way I look at it, people say, well, it seems scary or whatever. But what about Google Maps and things that we've embraced years ago? I couldn't live, J.P., without Google Maps. So that's technology that it's going to help us. It's not going to take us over or whatever. It's going to help us enhance what we're doing.  J.P.: Yeah, I think the concerns about Skynet are a little bit, you know, Skynet and Terminator are a little bit far-fetched, but it is something that we all need to get on board with. It's a lot like the way that, you know, when I first started practicing the notion of uploading paper documents to be reviewed and then using search terms was really scary for a lot of people, but that, you know, that became commonplace and you couldn't function without it. This will do the same thing to the extent it's not the same. Now, Jeff, what's the overlap, if any, between that you see between some of the AI initiatives and odr.com?  Jeff: We're not really combining those yet, but I think we will. There's discussions about it, but right now we're focusing on mediation with odr.com and we're discussing rolling out AI with various things to help to assist our arbitrators, are mediators, but I think eventually, you know, there'll be a combination, I think, but right now there's not.  J.P.: Got it. Well, we'll stay tuned because I can't imagine those two things are going to stay in separate houses for too long. Well, we could talk all day about what's going on at the AAA-ICDR right now because it's just amazing. I mean, it's really incredibly, incredibly dynamic at the moment. But what I'd like to do is sort of shift ahead to looking ahead to the future. We talked a bit earlier about how the AAA is rapidly approaching its centennial anniversary, And that's kind of a natural reflection point for any organization. If you were to sort of sum things up and say, what accomplishments from its first century of existence that the AAA is most proud of, what do you think you would point to?  Jeff: Well, I would point to two things. First, how amazing the AAA-ICDR was and also other ADR providers. When pandemic hit, within a week, we were up with 700 employees doing thousands and thousands of cases. And I was worried about the arbitrators, not you, J.P., but other arbitrators with the technology. And our 6,000 arbitrators, it was flawless. It was amazing or seamless. It really went well. And that I'm very, very proud of because I had been with the AAA for a long time prior to that. And I was really concerned that the arbitrators weren't going to get it. We weren't going to be able to understand Microsoft Teams, Zoom, all that kind of stuff. So we did a great job during pandemic. We had some of our best years during pandemic with respect to helping society in arbitrating cases. But also some of the things that we've done for state and federal governments, you know, state and federal governments, Storm Sandy, Katrina. Those are the things I'm very proud of. I was a part of the Storm Sandy stuff where we administered 6,000 cases for homeowners and with insurance companies. And we were able to do that very quickly. And we're a not-for-profit. So the federal government and the state governments look at us and will hire us to do those kind of projects. And we can quickly mobilize because of our staff. So those two things really stand out in my career at AAA.  J.P.: That's a really, really interesting thing to point to because that truly embodies the best that the AAA can offer. It's an incredible service that really helped people with real-life issues during really challenging times. So wonderful to hear. What would you see for the next 100 years in the AAA? Like, you know, looking forward, I know it's going to be here for, it's going to be having its two, it's bicentennial at some point. It will absolutely occur. What would you see is, you know, if you were to fast forward yourself a hundred years and still be in the seat, because by then technology will have kept us all alive for the next hundred years, and you're Jeff Zaino 2.0, sitting around in 200 years, where would you see the AAA-ICDR at that point?  Jeff: Well, I'm on part of the committee for the 100-year anniversary. We have a committee already formed two years in advance to get ready for our 100th year anniversary, and we're talking about this stuff. And I think some of the themes that Bridget's talking about, access to justice, I think we're going to be, we saw from 1990 to now 8 million cases, we're going to see far more. We're going to see the public now embracing arbitration. When I was hired by the AAA in the 90s, I didn't even know what AAA stood for. I mean, with the name, American Arbitration Association. I didn't know what arbitration was. We are reaching out to law schools. We're doing collaboration with a lot of law schools in New York and throughout the country, throughout the world. And I think the word's going to get out there that arbitration is the way to go. Our mediation is too. And I'm excited about that. Also, we're going to see far more diversity at AAA and also in the community. And that's something that we really care about at the AAA. Right now, J.P., as you probably know, any list that goes out at the AAA is a minimum of 30% diverse. So we're going to see an increase in that area, but also access to justice for the public.  J.P.: Really, really great. And I think we will all watch with rapt attention to see what happens because it's only good things in the future for the AAA-ICDR, that's for sure. Well, Jeff, I just want to thank you. But before we wrap this up, I'm going to reserve my right to bring you back for another podcast because there's so much more we could talk about. So, but is there anything I missed that we should hit on now that would be great for the audience to hear? I know there's just so much going on.  Jeff: Well, I hope the audience when in 2026, when we have our 100th anniversary, I hope people participate in it because we're going to do things worldwide and we're going to be doing events everywhere. And that year we really are, we have a huge team of people that are working in our 100th year anniversary and not to just necessarily promote AAA-ICDR, but to promote arbitration and mediation. And that's what we're going to be doing in 2026, and I'm very excited about it.  J.P.: You heard it here first, folks. Arbitration is the future. And Jeff said it himself. So we will definitely watch closely. Well, good. And just to give a very quick preview on this one, too, because Jeff, you mentioned it. We are going to, in the future, have your colleagues from the ICDR side of the house come on, and we're going to bring some of the new folks from Singapore and a few other people. So more to come. And it's just incredible to see.  Jeff: We look forward to it. And J.P., I'd love to have another sit down with you. It's been great.  J.P.: Good. We absolutely will. So that then will conclude our discussion at the American Arbitration Association for now. And I want to thank our guest, Jeff Zaino of the AAA Commercial Division for his invaluable insights. And I want to thank you, the audience, for listening today. You should feel free to reach out to Reed Smith about today's podcast with any questions you might have. And you should absolutely as well feel free to reach out to Jeff. I know he's super responsive and he would love to chat with you directly if you have any questions. And we look forward to having you tune in for future episodes of the series, including future updates with Jeff and our podcast with the ICDR as well. So thank you everyone. And we will be back.  Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's global international arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first-of-its-kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on podcast streaming platforms, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP.  Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers.  All rights reserved.  Transcript is auto-generated.

Subscribe to Grand Tamasha on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, or your favorite podcast app. I spoke with Kushagr Bakshi is a Michigan International and Comparative Law Scholar and an SJD candidate at the University of Michigan Law School, where he also received his LLM. He received his first law degree from NUJS in West Bengal. We discussed a chapter of his dissertation called “The Country Without a Post Office: Jammu and Kashmir and the Imaginations of Freedom Within a Federation. We talked about assymetrical federalism versus hetererarchy, constitutional values and imagination for federalism in India, and much more.  Recorded October 24th, 2024. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links. Connect with Ideas of India Follow us on X Follow Shruti on X Follow Kushagr on X Click here for the latest Ideas of India episodes sent straight to your inbox. Timestamps (00:00:00) - Intro (00:01:06) - Grand Tamasha (00:04:12) - Asymmetric Versus Heterarchical Federalism (00:19:37) - Isn't this Asymmetric Federalism? (00:31:39) - Democracy in Local Governments (00:43:27) - Rethinking the Rajya Sabha (00:53:30) - Outro

Have you ever considered looking for another avenue to create a more stabilized business in real estate? Then, join us for this week's episode with John Cascarano and his journey to building his expertise in RV parks!John tells us how he achieved massive growth in RV parks and campgrounds, his ways to identify possible opportunities in this asset class, the significance of building a team and systemizing operations, and more. Keep tuning in for more valuable investing strategies!Key Points & Relevant TopicsJohn's background in commercial real estate law before he transitioned into RV park investingThe reason why it's difficult to build new mobile home parksHow John started investing in RV parks and the most challenging part of acquiring his first dealThe RV park's potential income and scalabilityWhy it's important to consider location when investing in RV parksHow to evaluate opportunities and do due diligence in RV parksThe capital raising side of buying multiple RV parksMaintaining business growth in times of multiple projectsJohn's insights into the RV market and his future goals in real estateResources & LinksApartment Syndication Due Diligence Checklist for Passive InvestorAbout John CascaranoJohn is the founder of Blue Metric Group, a private equity firm specializing in the acquisition and operation of RV parks and campgrounds. He is an experienced attorney, brand founder & entrepreneur. John has founded or co-founded multiple companies and served in various roles from CEO to Counsel. He formerly practiced law at an AmLaw 100 firm as a commercial real estate lawyer. John earned his BA degree in English from Duke University in 2001 and his JD from the University of Michigan Law School in 2004. John is a member of the State Bars of Tennessee and Georgia. John is also active in Entrepreneurs' Organization in the Nashville chapter.Get in Touch with JohnWebsite: https://www.bluemetricgroup.com/ Email: john@bluemetricgroup.com To Connect With UsPlease visit our website www.bonavestcapital.com and click here to leave a rating and written review!

The conflict in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, primarily involves the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) under General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. While the fighting began in the country's capital, Khartoum, it has since spread to other regions, including Darfur. The conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries, with estimates of 15,000 killed and more than 20,000 injured. The humanitarian crisis is dire, with millions facing severe food shortages. Around 25 million people are in need of assistance, 8.1 million are internally displaced, and 2.9 million people have crossed the border since April 2023. Recent discussions at the United Nations General Assembly highlighted the urgent need for international intervention and support. Meanwhile, the most recent clashes in Khartoum suggest a possible shift in the balance of power, as both sides continue to vie for control amid an increasingly fragmented landscape.Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law.Joining the show to discuss the conflict's origins and its impact, and the international community's response are Laura Beny, Nisrin Elamin, and Hamid Khalafallah. Laura is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, Nisrin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto, and Hamid is a Researcher at the University of Manchester. Show Notes:  Laura Nyantung BenyNisrin Elamin (@minlayla77)Hamid Khalafallah (@HamidMurtada)Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's Sudan coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

You do not have the right to repair your own belongings because of intellectual property rights granted to corporations by Congress in 1998. In this episode, listen to the debate happening in Congress about if and how they should grant customers the right to repair and get a status update on the multiple efforts under way in the current Congress, including one with a good chance of becoming law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes McDonald's Ice Cream Machines Andy Greenberg. December 14, 2023. Wired. Joseph Fawbush. March 29, 2022. FindLaw. John Deere Luke Hogg. January 8, 2024. Reason. Internet of Things Updates and Maintenance Márk Szabó. August 27, 2024. WeLiveSecurity. Massachusetts Auto Repair Law Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. DoD's Revolving Door OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Karl Evers-Hillstrom and Reid Champlin. June 18, 2019. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Salary.com. Military Right to Repair Issues Kyle Mizokami. February 11, 2020. Popular Mechanics. Max Finkel. February 8, 2020. Jalopnik. Elle Ekman. November 20, 2019. The New York Times. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) Jennifer Zerkee. November 8, 2023. Simon Fraser University. Cyber Risks Sam Curry et al. January 3, 2023. samcurry.net. Apple Lawsuit Brandon Vigliarolo. December 18, 2023. The Register. NDAA Sec. 828 Jason Koebler. August 28, 2024. 404 Media. AdvaMed et al. July 30, 2024. DocumentCloud via 404 Media. Laws Bills Sec. 828 : REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO REPAIR MATERIALS. Fair Repair Act Audio Sources May 16, 2024 Senate Armed Services Committee Witnesses: Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy Clip Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So the Navy acquires everything from night vision goggles to aircraft carriers through contracts with big defense contractors, but the contractors often place restrictions on these deals that prevent service members from maintaining or repairing the equipment, or even let them write a training manual without going back through the contractor. Now the contractors say that since they own the intellectual property and the technical data underlying the equipment, only they have the right to repair that equipment. These right to repair restrictions usually translate into much higher costs for DOD, which has no choice but to shovel money out to big contractors whenever DOD needs to have something fixed. So take the Navy's littoral combat ship, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin considered much of the data and equipment on the ship to be proprietary, so the Navy had to delay missions and spend millions of dollars on travel costs, just so that contractor affiliated repairmen could fly in, rather than doing this ourselves. Secretary Del Toro, when a sailor isn't allowed to repair part of their ship at sea, and a marine isn't allowed to access technical data to fix a generator on a base abroad. One solution is for the Navy to buy the intellectual property from the contractors. So can you say a little bit about what the benefits are of the Navy having technical rights for the equipment that it has purchased. Sec. Carlos Del Toro: The benefits are enormous, Senator, and we've actually had tremendous success, I'd say, in the last year and a half to two years, through the taxpayer advocacy program that we initiated when I came in. There have been three examples, one, gaining the intellectual property rights for the new ACV class of ships that will replace the AAVs. The F-35 negotiations really proved themselves out in a significant way as well, too. And lastly, the 20 F-18s that the Congress authorized in ‘22 and ‘23, we were able to make significant gains in terms of the government finally getting the intellectual property rights that were necessary for us to be able to properly sustain those moving forward. Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So I am very, very glad to hear this. I like the taxpayer advocacy project and how you're training contract officers to secure technical equipment that the Navy buys, but I think you should have the support of Congress on this. Senator Braun and I have introduced the Stop price gouging the military act to give DoD more tools to get cost and pricing data so that you will be in a better position to negotiate better deals with contractors. There's also more that we can do to ensure that the Navy and the rest of the services have the rights they need to bolster readiness. So let me ask you, Secretary Del Toro, would having a stronger focus on right to repair issues during the acquisition process, like prioritizing contract bids that give DoD fair access to repair materials, and ensuring that contract officers are looking into buying technical rights early on, would that help the Navy save costs and boost readiness at the same time? Sec. Carlos Del Toro: Very much. Senator, in fact, one of the things that we have prioritized since I came in as Secretary of the Navy, given my acquisition background, is actually those negotiations need to happen as early as possible before that we even as we develop the acquisition strategy for that contract to go out to bid, and by doing so, we will reap tremendous returns. July 18, 2023 House Judiciary Committee Witnesses: Aaron Perzanowski, Thomas W. Lacchia Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School , Legal Fellow, Hudson Institute's Forum for Intellectual Property Kyle Wiens, Co-founder and CEO, iFixit Paul Roberts, Founder, SecuRepairs.org; Founder and Editor-in-Chief, the Security Ledger Scott Benavidez, Chairman, Automotive Service Association; Owner, Mr. B's Paint & Body Shop Clips 41:25 Scott Benavidez: My name is Scott Benavidez. I'm the Chairman of the Automotive Service Association's Board of Directors. I am also a second generation shop owner from Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mr. B's Paint and Body Shop. Scott Benavidez: We do have concerns when some insurers insist on repairs that are simply cheaper and quicker, without regard to quality and safety. Repairers understand better than anyone the threat of replacement crash parts or lesser quality. We can and should have a competitive marketplace that doesn't compromise quality or safety, deciding to only cover the cheapest option without understanding implications for quality leaves collision shops and their customers in a tough position. Very few consumers have the knowledge about these types of crash parts used on their vehicles as numerous crash parts in the marketplace, such as OEM (original equipment manufactured) parts, certified aftermarket parts, aftermarket parts, reconditioned crash parts, and recycled crash parts. Repairers can make recommendations, but their customers are unlikely to hear if the insurance won't cover them. 46:45 Paul Roberts: My name is Paul Roberts, and I'm the founder of Secure Repairs. We're an organization of more than 350 cyber security and information technology professionals who support the right to repair. 46:55 Paul Roberts: I'm speaking to you today on behalf of our members to make clear that the fair access to repair materials sought by right to repair laws does not increase cyber risk, and in fact, it can contribute to a healthier and more secure ecosystem of smart and connected devices. Paul Roberts: Proposed right to repair legislation considered by this Congress, such as the Repair Act, or last session, the Fair Repair Act, simply asks manufacturers that already provide repair information and tools to their authorized repair providers to also provide them at a fair and reasonable price to the owners of the devices and to third parties that they may wish to hire to do their work. 47:35 Paul Roberts: By definition, the information covered by right to repair laws is not sensitive or protected, as evidenced by the fact that the manufacturers already distribute it widely to hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of workers for their authorized repair providers. This could be everyone from mechanics working at auto dealerships to the folks staffing the Geek Squad at Best Buy. 48:00 Paul Roberts: Also, we have yet to find any evidence that the types of information covered by right to repair laws like schematic diagrams, service manuals, diagnostic software and replacement parts act as a portal to cyber attacks. The vast majority of attacks on internet connected devices - from broadband routers to home appliances to automobiles - today exploit weaknesses in the embedded software produced and distributed by the manufacturers, or alternatively, weak device configurations so they're deployed on the internet in ways that make them vulnerable to attack. These security weaknesses are an epidemic. A recent study of the security of Internet of Things devices, by the company Phosphorus Labs, or a cybersecurity company, found that 68% of Internet of Things devices contained high risk or critical software vulnerabilities. As an example, I'd like to call attention to the work of a group of independent researchers recently led by Sam Curry, who published a report, and you can Google this, "Web Hackers vs. the Auto Industry" in January 2023. That group disclosed wide ranging and exploitable flaws in vehicle telematics systems from 16 different auto manufacturers. At a leading GPS supplier to major automakers, the researchers claimed to obtain full access to a company-wide administration panel that gave them the ability to send arbitrary commands to an estimated 15.5 million vehicles, including vehicles used by first responders, police, fire and so on. Hacks like this take place without any access to repair materials, nor is there any evidence that providing access to repair software will open the doors to new attacks. 50:05 Paul Roberts: For the last 25 years, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has given manufacturers an incentive to deploy software locks widely and to limit access to security researchers. That's kind of a model what we call in cybersecurity, security through obscurity. In other words, by keeping the workings of something secret, you're making it secure. But in fact, that doesn't work, because cyber criminals are very resourceful and they're very determined, and they don't really care what the law says. 50:35 Paul Roberts: Section 1201 has also enabled what one researcher has described as dark patterns in the design and manufacture of hardware that includes everything from locking out customers from access to administrative interfaces, administrative features of the products that they own, as well as practices like part pairing, which Kyle will talk to you more about, in which manufacturers couple replaceable components like screens and sensors and cameras to specific device hardware. Such schemes make manufacturers and their authorized repair providers gatekeepers for repairs, and effectively bar competition from the owners of the devices as well as independent repair providers. 54:45 Kyle Wiens: You think about what is local? What is American? Main Street you have a post office and a repair shop. And unfortunately, we've seen the whittling down of Main Street as the TV repair shops went away when the manufacturers cut off access to schematics, as the camera repair shops went away when Nikon and Canon decided to stop selling them parts. We've seen this systematically across the economy. In the enterprise space, you have Oracle and IBM saying that you can't get security updates to critical cyber infrastructure unless you buy a service contract with them, so they're tying long term service contracts with the security updates that are necessary to keep this infrastructure secure. 56:45 Kyle Wiens: Over the last decade plus, I've been working on Section 1201, trying to get exemptions for the ability to repair products. The challenge that we've had in the section 1201 process every triennial I go back and we ask for permission to be able to fix our own things is that the exemptions we've gotten really only apply to individual consumers. They aren't something that I could use to make a tool to provide to one of you to fix yourself. So in order for someone to take advantage of a 1201 exemption that we have, they have to be a cybersecurity researcher and able to whittle their own tools and use it themselves, and that just doesn't scale. 57:45 Devlin Hartline: My name is Devlin Hartline, and I'm a legal fellow at the Hudson Institute's forum for intellectual property. 57:50 Devlin Hartline: I'd like to start with a question posed by the title of this hearing, is there a right to repair? And the answer is clearly no. A right is a legally enforceable claim against another, but the courts have not recognized that manufacturers have the duty to help consumers make repairs. Instead, the courts have said that while we have the ability to repair our things, we also have the duty not to infringe the IP rights in the process. So it is in fact, the manufacturers who have the relevant rights, not consumers. 58:30 Devlin Hartline: Right to repair supporters want lawmakers to force manufacturers to make the tools, parts, and know-how needed to facilitate repairs available to consumers and independent repair shops. And the assumption here is that anything standing in the way of repair opportunities must necessarily harm the public good, but these tools, parts and know-how, are often protected by IP rights such as copyrights and design patents. And we protect copyrighted works and patented inventions because, as the Constitution recognizes, this promotes the public good. We reward creators and innovators as an incentive for them to bring these things to the marketplace and the public benefits from the introduction of new products and services that increase competition. Thus, the right to repair movement isn't based on a pre-existing right. It's instead asking lawmakers to create a new right at the expense of the existing rights of IP owners. 1:00:45 Devlin Hartline: IP owners are merely exercising their federally protected IP rights, and this is not actionable anti-competitive conduct. It is instead how the IP system is supposed to work. We grant IP owners exclusive rights so they can exclude others, and this, in turn, promotes the investments to create and to commercialize these creative innovations in the marketplace, and that promotes the public good. Aaron Perzanowski: My name is Aaron Perzanowski. I am a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and for the last 15 years, my academic research has focused on the intersection of personal and intellectual property rights in the digital economy. During that time, the right to repair has emerged as a central challenge to the notion that we as consumers control the devices that we buy. Instead consumers, farmers, small businesses, all find that manufacturers exert post-sale control over these devices, often in ways that frustrate repair. Aaron Perzanowski: Repair is as old as humanity. Our Paleolithic ancestors repaired hand axes and other primitive tools, and as our technologies have grown more complex, from the Bronze Age through the Renaissance, to the high tech devices that we all have in our pockets here today, repair has always kept pace. But today, manufacturers are employing a range of strategies that restrict repair, from their hardware and software design choices to clamp downs on secondary markets, and we also troublingly see attempts to leverage IP rights as tools to restrict repair. These efforts are a major departure from the historical treatment of repair under the law, the right to repair is not only consistent with nearly two centuries of IP law in the United States, it reflects half a millennium of common law property doctrine that rejects post-sale restrictions on personal property as early as the 15th century. English property law recognized that once a property owner sells an item, efforts to restrain how the new owner of that item can use it are inconsistent with the essential nature of private property and obnoxious to public policy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, IP laws' respect for the property interests of purchasers of copyrighted and patented goods was profoundly shaped by this common law tradition. In 1850, the Supreme Court recognized that the repair of a patented machine reflected "no more than the exercise of that right of care, which everyone may use to give duration to that which he owns." A century later, the Court held that the repair of a convertible car roof was justified as an exercise of "the lawful right of the property owner to repair his property." And just a few years ago, the court reaffirmed the rejection of post-sale restrictions under patent law in Impression Products vs. Lexmark, a case about refurbishing printer ink cartridges. Copyright law, not surprisingly, has had fewer occasions to consider repair restrictions. But as early as 1901, the Seventh Circuit recognized "a right of repair or renewal under US copyright law." When a publisher sued to prevent a used book dealer from repairing and replacing damaged components of books, the court said that "the right of ownership in the book carries with it and includes the right to maintain the book as nearly as possible in its original condition." A century after that, Congress itself acknowledged repair as a right that owners enjoy, regardless of copyright restrictions, when it enacted section 117 C of the Copyright Act. That provision was designed to undo a Ninth Circuit decision that allowed copyright holders to prevent third party repairs of computers. Section 117 C explicitly permits owners of machines to make copies of computer programs in the course of maintenance or repair. And finally, the US Copyright Office over the last decade has repeatedly concluded that diagnosis, repair, and maintenance activities are non-infringing when it comes to vehicles, consumer devices, and medical equipment. So the right to repair is firmly rooted in basic principles of US IP law. Aaron Perzanowski: Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it practically impossible for consumers to exercise their lawful right to repair a wide range of devices, from tractors to home electronics, even though the copyright office says those activities are not infringing, and the weakening of standards for design patents allow firms to choke off the supply of replacement parts needed to repair vehicles, home appliances, and other devices. Aaron Perzanowski: One way to think about a right is as an affirmative power to force someone else to engage in some behavior, and in some cases, that is what we're talking about. We're talking about imposing, especially on the state level, regulations that impose requirements on manufacturers. I think that's true of the Repair Act on the federal level as well. But, I think part of what we also need to keep in mind is that sometimes what you need to effectuate a right is to eliminate barriers that stand in the way of that right. So we can think about this, I think, helpfully in the context of tools that enable people to engage in repair. The state level solution has been to require manufacturers to give their own tools to repair shops, sometimes compensated under fair and reasonable terms. The other solution would be to change section 1201 to say, let's allow independent repair shops to make their own tools. I think both of those solutions have some value to them. I also think it's really important to keep in mind that when we're talking about IP rights, there are always multiple sets of interests at stake, and one of the key balances that IP law has always tried to strike is the balance between the limited statutory exclusive rights that the Patent and Copyright Acts create and the personal property rights of consumers who own these devices. And so I think a balancing is absolutely necessary and appropriate. 1:15:20 Aaron Perzanowski: I think the best solution for Section 1201 is embodied in a piece of legislation that Representatives Jones and Spartz introduced in the last Congress, which would create a permanent exception to Section 1201 for repair that would apply not only to the act of circumvention, but would also apply to the creation and distribution of tools that are useful for repair purposes that does not open the door to broad, unrestrained, creation of circumvention tools, but tools that are that are targeted to the repair market. 1:16:40 Devlin Hartline: He cited a case about where you can repair a cover on a book. That's very different than recreating the book, every single word in it, right? So there's a difference between repairing something and then crossing the line into violating the exclusive rights of IP owners in the patented product or the copyrighted book. And so the things that repair supporters are asking for is that, if somebody has a design patent that covers an auto body part, well, they have the right to exclude other people from making that part, but repair supporters say they shouldn't have that exclusive right, because, you know, we could increase competition if we just took away their design patent and now other people could make that part, and so that's competition. But that's not the type of competition that IP law and competition law seek to support. That's like saying, if we just let the Pirate Bay copy and distribute all of the Disney blockbuster movies, then that's competition, and prices would go down. But that's not the way that we do it, right? So competition means other people come up with new products and new services, and so that's what we should be trying to support. 1:26:45 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): Repair advocates argue that section 1201, prevents non-infringing circumvention of access controls for purposes. But Congress contemplated this use when it passed the DMCA in 1998, allowing for a triennial exemption process. Is the exemption process working as intended? And if not, are there actions Congress can take to expand exemptions or make them easier to acquire? Devlin Hartline: What's important about the triennial rulemaking is that the proponent of an exemption has to come forward with evidence and demonstrate that there's actually a problem and it relates to a certain class of works, and then they can get a temporary exemption for three years. And so it is true that the Librarian of Congress, the last few rulemakings, has said that because using a copyrighted work in a way for repair, maintenance, etc, is Fair Use that they grant these exemptions. But these exemptions are quite narrow. They do not allow the trafficking of the computer programs that can crack the TPMs. And so it's very narrowly done. And the concern is that if you were to create a permanent exemption that opens things all the way up with access controls, copy controls and trafficking thereof, is now you're getting to the point of why we even have these TPMs under 1201 in the first place, and that's because they guard against piracy. And so the concern is that you're opening the piracy floodgates. You make these devices less secure, and then content owners are going to be less likely to want to put their content on these devices. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): How does section 1201 of the DMCA impact the ability of consumers and independent repair shops to modify or repair devices that have proprietary software and data in the consumer electronics industry? Aaron Perzanowski: Thank you so much for the question. As we've been talking about the copyright office in 2015, 2018, 2021, and they're in the process for the current rulemaking, has determined that engaging in circumvention, the removal or bypassing of these digital locks for purposes of repair, is perfectly lawful behavior, but there is a major practical mismatch here between the legal rights that consumers enjoy under federal law today and their practical ability to exercise those rights. And that's because, as Devlin was just describing, the section 1201 rulemaking does not extend to the creation or distribution of tools, right? So I have the right under federal law, to remove the technological lock, say, on my video game console, if I want to swap out a broken disk drive. How do I do that? I'd like to think of myself as a pretty technologically sophisticated person. I don't have the first clue about how to do that. I need a person who can write that code, make that code available to consumers so that I can. All I'm trying to do is swap out a broken disk drive on my video game. But you would argue that code is proprietary, correct? So I'm talking here about a third party making their own code that is simply allowing me to engage in activity that the Copyright Office has repeatedly said is non-infringing. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): So you want to give them a map. Is that, essentially, what you're saying? Aaron Perzanowski: Absolutely, yes, I do. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): Do trade secrets play a role in the right to repair debate? Aaron Perzanowski: There are occasions where trade secrets are important. I don't think in the context that we're talking about here with section 1201, that we're typically running into trade secret issues. The state-level bills that have been introduced do typically address trade secrets and often have carve outs there. And I think that's something worth considering in this debate. But I think it's important to keep in mind that just because we have some hypothetical worry about some unknown bad actor taking a tool that I use to fix my video game console -- Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): It's not unknown. The Chinese do it all the time. Aaron Perzanowski: I don't think the Chinese are particularly worried about whether or not I can fix my video game console, and in fact, I think that point is important, but the bad actors already have these tools. All we're trying to do is get very targeted tools in the hands of law abiding citizens who just want to repair the stuff they buy for their kids for Christmas, right? If the Chinese are going to hack the PlayStation, they've already done it. 1:32:25 Aaron Perzanowski: So the 1201 process is what established the legality of circumvention for repair purposes. But when Congress created that rulemaking authority, it only extends to the act of circumvention, the actual removal. Congress did not give the [Copyright] Office or the Librarian [of Congress] the authority to grant exemptions to the trafficking provisions, and that's where I think legislative intervention is really important. 1:39:00 Kyle Wiens: One of the challenges was section 1201. It doesn't just ban repair tools, it also bans the distribution of cybersecurity tools. And so we've seen security researchers....Apple sued a company that made a security research tool under 1201 and that tool has markedly made the world more secure. It's very popular amongst government security researchers. So I think that's kind of the sweet spot is, allow some third party inspection. It'll make the product better. 1:41:25 Kyle Wiens: These ice cream machines are made by Taylor, and there is an incredibly complex, baroque set of touchscreens you have to go through. And then there's a service password you have to be able to get past in order to access the settings that really allow you to do what you want. And so, in an ideal world, you'd have an entrepreneur who would come along and make a tool to make it easier for McDonald's, maybe they could have an app on their phone that they could use to configure and help them diagnose and repair the machine. Unfortunately, the company who made that tool is struggling legally because of all these challenges across the board. If we had innovation outside of the manufacturers and to be able to develop new tools for fixing ice cream machines or anything else, you have a whole flowering ecosystem of repair tools right now. It doesn't exist. The US is like this black hole where innovation is banned in software repair. There's all kinds of opportunities I could see, I had a farmer ask me for help fixing his John Deere tractor, and I had to say, I can't do that particular repair because it's illegal. I'd love to build a cool app for helping him diagnose and fix his tractor and get back back in the field faster. We don't have that marketplace right now. It's like farmers have been forced to, like, use cracked Ukrainian versions of John Deere diagnostic software, right? Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So it's not just ice cream machines. I led off with that, but it's farmers, it's farm equipment, it's iPhones, it's somebody's Xbox, right? I mean, these are all things.... in your experience, what are the challenges that these customers and stakeholders face when they're trying to repair their own devices? What are some things that they face? Kyle Wiens: It's absolutely infuriating. So my friend, farmer in San Luis Obispo, Dave grows all kinds of amazing products. He has a $300,000 John Deere tractor, came to me and said, Hey, there's a bad sensor. It's going to take a week to get that sensor sent out from Indiana, and I need to use the tractor in that time. Will you help me bypass the sensor? I could hypothetically modify the software in the tractor to do that. Practically, I didn't have the legal ability, and so he had to go and rent an expensive tractor for the week. This is impacting people's lives every single day. 1:43:50 Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So, to pivot a little bit, what role do you see from a federal side, from legislation, and what specific measures do you think might be included in such legislation? Kyle Wiens: So we've seen the solutions being approached from two angles. At the state level, you have states saying John Deere and other manufacturers, if you have a dealership that has fancy tools, sell those tools to consumers and to independent shops, allow that competition. At the federal level, what we can do is enable a competitive marketplace for those tools. So rather than compelling John Deere to sell the tool, we can say, hey, it's legal for someone, an entrepreneur, to make a competing tool. And you have this in the car market. You can take your car down the AutoZone, you can buy a scan tool, plug it into your car, and it'll decode some of the error messages. Those tools exist on the auto market because we have a standard diagnostic interface on cars that you can access without circumventing a TPM. We don't have that for any other products. So another farmer in my town, he showed me how if he has a transmission go out on a truck, he can fix that. But if he has a transmission go out on his John Deere tractor, he can't. He can physically install the transmission, but he can't program it to make it work. I'd love to be able to make a software tool to enable him to replace his transmission. Aaron Perzanowski: So I think if we see passage of the SMART Act, we can anticipate significant reductions in the expenses associated with auto collision repairs. Estimates are that design patents on collision parts are responsible for about $1.5 billion in additional expenditures. We see price premiums on OEM parts over third party parts often reaching into like the 40% range, right? So these are pretty significant cost savings associated with that. Part of this problem, I think, does relate back to the kind of unique structure of this market. Most consumers are not paying out of pocket for collision repairs. Those costs are being covered by their auto insurance provider, and so the consumer doesn't see that the - I'm pulling this from memory, so don't hold me to this figure - but the side view mirror of a Ford Fiesta costing $1,500, that's not something that the consumer is confronted with, right? So this goes back to the question of notice. Do consumers know when they buy that vehicle that the repairs are going to be that expensive? I think in most cases, they don't. And so I think the SMART Act is a very targeted solution to this problem. I do think it's important to note that the design patent issue for replacement parts is not limited to the automotive industry. I think it's the most, I think that's the area where the problem is most pressing. But home appliances, consumer electronics, we see companies getting design patents on replacement water filters for refrigerators so that they can charge three times as much when the little light comes on on your fridge to tell you that your water might not be as clean as you want it to be. So I think we have to think about that problem across a range of industries, but the automotive industry, I think, is absolutely the right place to start. Paul Roberts: I mean, one point I would just make is that with the Internet of Things, right, we are facing a crisis in the very near future as manufacturers of everything from home appliances to personal electronics to equipment, as those products age and those manufacturers walk away from their responsibility to maintain them. So we're no longer supporting the software. We're no longer issuing security updates. Who will step in to maintain those devices? Keep them secure, keep them operating right? The manufacturers walked away. Do we just get rid of them? No, because the equipment still works perfectly. We're going to need a market-based response to that. We're going to need small businesses to step up and say, hey, I'll keep that Samsung dishwasher working for another 20 years. That's a huge economic opportunity for this country, but we cannot do it in the existing system because of the types of restrictions that we're talking about. And so this is really about enabling a secure future in which, when you buy a dishwasher with a 20 year lifespan, or 25 year lifespan, it's going to last that 25 years, not the five to six years that the manufacturer has decided, you know, that's how long we want to support the software for. Paul Roberts: My understanding is the use of design patents has increased dramatically, even exponentially, in the last 10 to 15 years. If you go back to the 90s or 80s, you know, parts makers, automakers were not applying these types of patents to replaceable parts like bumpers and rear view mirrors. Somebody had a business decision that, if you can do so, then we can capture more of that aftermarket by outlawing identical aftermarket replacements that has a huge downstream impact on car owners and on insurers and on all of us. 2:10:15 Paul Roberts: Both of the things that we're really proposing or talking about here, which would be changes to Section 1201 of the DMCA as well as passage of robust right to repair laws, would empower a market-based response to keeping the internet of things working, secure and functioning. DMCA 1201 reforms by making it clear that you can circumvent software locks for the purpose of repair and maintenance and upkeep, right? So that would take the threat of the federal crime away from small business owners as well as security researchers who are interested in, you know, plumbing that software for purposes of maintenance, upkeep and repair. And on the right to repair by making the tools available to maintain and upkeep products - diagnostic software, schematic diagrams, service manuals - available. Once again, you'll be empowering small business owners to set up repair shops and say, I'm going to keep your smart appliance running for its full 25 or 30 year lifespan, and I'm going to support my family doing that locally, and not be basically choked out of business by a company that says, Well, you don't have the right to access this product. From a cybersecurity perspective, that is really important, because one thing we don't want is a population of millions or tens of millions of out of date, unsupported, unpatched, insecure internet connected home appliances, webcams, home routers out there available to nation state actors, cyber criminal groups, to compromise and use for their own purposes. And that's something we already see, particularly around broadband routers and other types of devices, and it's a real threat going forward that I think this type of these types of changes would support. Aaron Perzanowski In a lot of instances, this conversation, and we've touched on this earlier, focuses on cost savings, right? And cost savings are an important consideration, right? Farmers aren't thrilled that they have to pay a technician from the John Deere dealer to drive maybe hours to get to their farm and connect their laptop and, you know, download these payload files to enable their equipment to work. But in the agricultural space, the thing I hear most often in the conversations I have with farmers is and Kyle touched on this a bit earlier, is a real concern about the time sensitivity of their work. If your tractor is out of commission for a week or two in the wrong part of the season, that is going to have disastrous effects, right, not only on that farm's economic outlook, but collectively, it can have an impact like, not to be hyperbolic here, but on our national food supply, and so I think it's really important that farmers have flexibility in terms of where and how they execute repairs, so that they can get their equipment back up and running. If my laptop breaks and I can't get it fixed for a week or two, I'm annoyed there will be emails that go unanswered, but like the world will continue to spin. That is not the case in the agricultural space where we, I think, have to be much more concerned. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): If I remove from my BMW, at least during certain models, I remove the radio, unplug it, and then plug it back in, simply because I was fiddling around with the dash, I now have to go back to the dealer to reinstall it. Similarly, the transmission example. I've got two John Deere tractors. One's got a busted engine, the other's got a busted transmission. Currently, they will prohibit you from moving the transmission from one to the other. From a standpoint of intellectual property, where, in God's green earth or the Constitution, are any of those designed to be rights that belong to the manufacturer, rather than rights that belong to the owners of those two John Deere tractors? Devlin Hartline: So those are a bunch of different situations, and so I think there would be underlying facts that differ with each right. So we started on the iPhone, and I was going to point out that iPhone will actually give you the tool to synchronize it. In those other situations, I don't know the business justification for it. How is that an IP problem? Right? So if that's locked up with the TPM, and you have to bypass the TPM, well then that's a violation of 1201, so that's how they can that's how they can lock -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): So what you're saying is that Congress has created impediments to the right to repair. Mr. Roberts, would you say that is correct? That, in fact, the right to repair, were Congress never to have done anything since, you know, George and Thomas were our presidents, so to speak, knowing those two presidents, we'd be able to do things we're not able to do because they're now prohibited by acts of Congress. Paul Roberts: Yes, and we certainly know going back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, there was a much more you know....First of all, companies would ship products with service and repair manuals with detailed schematic diagrams with the understanding that owners would want to replace and service them. And what I would say is, yes, absolutely. I doubt very much. And I know we had members who were here in 1998 authoring the DMCA. I think if you had said to them, in 25 years time, this law will be used to prevent somebody with a broken dishwasher from getting that serviced by their local repair shop or by for fixing it themselves, this law will prevent them from doing that, I doubt very much they would have said, yeah, that's pretty much what we want. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): Well, I will tell you that the I was the chairman of what is now the Consumer Electronics Association in 1998 and we did predict a lot of these items were going to be expanded beyond the scope of the original. Paul Roberts: Right now this is not an urgent issue, because most of the cars out there are older vehicles. As we move forward, as telematic systems evolve, as automakers continue their trend of moving more and more information to telematic systems, this is going to become a bigger problem. I'll point out another problem, which is the Massachusetts law is contingent on data transfers of diagnostic and repair information via the OBD or onboard diagnostic two port under the dashboard. That's only there because of federal Clean Air law. Electronic vehicles don't have that port because they don't have emissions, and so in the very near future, as we shift to electronic vehicles, that data access port will no longer be there. It will all be telematics data, and so the utility of the Massachusetts law is going to decline over time, going forward. And again, I you know, when you start talking about right to repair, you become like this crazy person who talks about right to repair every time it comes up. But one thing I try and stress to people when I talk to them about auto repair is, if you live in Michigan or California and you have taken your vehicle to the local independent repair shop, you have only done that because the voters in Massachusetts passed a ballot measure over a decade ago and then updated it in November 2020. That is the very thin thread that our right to use independent auto repair hangs by in this country. That's not the way it's supposed to be. This is something that affects vehicle owners, hundreds of millions of them in all 50 states. And it's a type of thing that the federal government needs to address with federal legislation. It should not hang by this very thin thread. 2:30:20 Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Are software updates new creations, and thus copyrightable? Devlin Hartline: Software updates, yeah, they're computer programs, and so Congress said explicitly in 1980, but it was understood before then, that computer programs are literary works and they're protected, just like any other copyrighted work. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Thank you, Professor Perzanowski, do you disagree? Aaron Perzanowski: I don't disagree at all that software updates are protectable subject matter under the Copyright Act. But what I think is important to keep in mind right is the Copyright Act and copyrights exclusive rights, and all of the exceptions and limitations to copyrights exclusive rights are created by Congress, and so if you think those rights are interfering with other important issues and concerns, then I think Congress clearly has the power to make changes to the copyright law in order to best serve what you ultimately determine to be in the public interest. 2:35:30 Aaron Perzanowski: Access to firmware and other code is really essential to the functioning and repair of lots of devices. I think there's some important differences between the standard essential patent context and kind of what we're talking about here in that in the standard essential patent context, we're relying on standard setting bodies to identify technologies and to require companies to license their patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. We don't quite have that infrastructure in place in the copyright context, but what we do have are compulsory licenses that exist within the Copyright Act already, one of which you were alluding to earlier, the mechanical license for musical works. We also have compulsory licenses for retransmissions of satellite and broadcast content that essentially say the copyright owner is entitled to compensation of some form, but they're not entitled to prevent people from using or accessing that underlying work, and I think that could be a useful framework here for getting owners of devices access to the firmware that they need. Music by Editing Production Assistance

The Destiny's Child of constitutional law (aka Strict Scrutiny) is back on Getting Curious to help us digest and dissect all the wack-a-doodle nonsense that is: Project 2025. Leah Litman & Kate Shaw from the hit podcast Strict Scrutiny sat down with JVN to really parse out the MAGA manifesto. We're talking all about Project 2025's hallmark proposals, the key players involved, as well as tossing in some Supreme Court, Alito/Thomas Updates for good measure. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Our senior producer is Chris McClure. Our editor & engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Melissa Murray is in for Ali Velshi and is joined by producer and MSNBC Political Contributor, Steve Benen, host and MSNBC Political Analyst, Molly Jong-Fast, NBC News' Senior Executive Editor and author of ‘Where Tyranny Begins: The Justice Department, the FBI, and the War on Democracy”, David Rohde, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Rohit Chopra, Chair of the Transgender Law Center, Imara Jones, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, Leah Litman, MSNBC Political Analyst and author, ‘Resistance: How Women Saved Democracy from Donald Trump', Jennifer Rubin, New York Times Bestselling author of ‘The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America – and What We Can Do to Stop It', Reproductive Rights Advocate, Kaitlyn Kash, Co-Chair of American Bridge 21st Century, Fmr. Gov. Steve Bullock (D-MT), Fmr. U.S. Senator for Alabama (D) and author of ‘Bending Toward Justice', Fmr. Sen. Doug Jones

In a new episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara is joined by guest co-host Barb McQuade. Barb served as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017. She is a CAFE contributor, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, and a legal analyst for NBC News & MSNBC. In an excerpt from the show, Preet and Barb break down the criminal charges filed against five individuals, including two doctors, in connection with the ketamine overdose death of Friends actor Matthew Perry. In the full episode, Preet and Barb discuss: – Former President Donald Trump's request to postpone sentencing for his Manhattan conviction and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's decision to defer the matter to the judge;  – Trump's lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking $100 million in damages from the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search;  – Newly released government records revealing Hunter Biden solicited U.S. government assistance relating to international business deals while his father, Joe Biden, was Vice President; and  – Former Rep. George Santos's guilty plea to wire fraud and identity theft charges. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Subscribe to The Counsel for free to get more news at the intersection of law and politics each week. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Barb McQuade is the former US Attorney from Michigan, and current University of Michigan Law School professor, NBC legal analyst, and Cafe contributor. She joins Preet to discuss her new book, Attack from Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America, and how false information has become a serious threat to national security.  Plus, the latest Trump gag order and the Mayorkas impeachment. For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/barb-mcquade-trump-disinformation-book/  Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on Threads, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices