POPULARITY
20 episodes with minnesota law school
65 episodes with minnesota law school
12 episodes with minnesota law school
7 episodes with minnesota law school
5 episodes with minnesota law school
5 episodes with minnesota law school
3 episodes with minnesota law school
3 episodes with minnesota law school
3 episodes with minnesota law school
Comanche Chairman Forrest Tahdooahnippah joins in to talk about Comanche history, culture, and so much more. We had a chance to talk about the legal relationships between Tribal nations and the United States, the importance of language preservation, what it's like to lead a Tribe, thoughts on how Comanche people have been portrayed on film, and how historians and others can conduct ethical scholarship in Indian Country. This was a really wonderful conversation and I'm so thankful to the Chairman for the time to talk with us.About our guest:Forrest Tahdooahnippah is Chairman of the Comanche Nation. He earned a Bachelor's Degree in Public Policy from Stanford University and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Minnesota Law School. Prior to his service as Chairman, he was legal counsel at Dorsey & Whitney, LLP and was an assistant professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
The Department of Justice is suing Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County, the Hennepin County Sheriff and the attorney general over sanctuary policies.These policies, which jurisdictions often call separation ordinances, limit local government and law enforcement's collaboration with ICE. The federal government says the policies interfere with federal immigration enforcement and are illegal. In response to the lawsuit, both mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul say they are committed to the city's ordinances. Ana Pottratz Acotsa, a visiting professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and the Binger Center for New Americans, spoke to MPR News host Nina Moini about what impacts the lawsuit could have in Minnesota.
From September 18, 2024: Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Through her social security disability practice, Asha Sharma represents clients who are often struggling with poverty, homelessness, and complex medical conditions. In this episode, she discusses the realities of building a practice around contingency fees from federal back pay, the challenge of working with vulnerable clients who lack proper medical documentation, and the extensive medical knowledge required to effectively advocate for people with conditions ranging from chronic pain to severe mental illness. Asha reflects on preparing for administrative hearings before federal judges, the impact of fraud cases that have tightened evidentiary standards, and why she finds meaning in work that helps society's most marginalized individuals navigate a complex federal system. Asha Sharma is a graduate of University of Minnesota Law School. This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more about Rutgers LawLearn more about Vermont LawLearn more about Rutgers LawAccess LawHub today!
The mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church and School that killed two students and injured 21 others in Minneapolis has reignited calls for gun reform and policy changes at the city, state and federal levels. A group of Twin Cities-area mayors gathered at the Capitol Tuesday to call for more authority to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines if the Legislature refuses to do it at the state level. Gov. Tim Walz is mulling whether to call lawmakers back for a special session to address gun violence. Megan Walsh, the director of the Gun Violence Prevention Clinic at the University of Minnesota Law School, joins MPR News host Nina Moini with more on the state's gun laws.
President Trump's campaign to deport thousands of immigrants has had significant impacts for the Southeast Asian community in Minnesota. At a news conference last weekend by MN8, an advocacy group helping Southeast Asian immigrant communities, co-founder and executive director Montha Chum told reporters that five Hmong Minnesotans in federal detention were transferred to Louisiana and are currently awaiting deportation to Laos. Sahan Journal reports that, as of early June, at least 15 Hmong Minnesotans with criminal convictions were arrested to be deported. Ana Pottratz Acosta, a visiting professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and the Binger Center for New Americans — and a former immigration attorney — joined MPR News host Nina Moini to discuss the issue and explain what happens to immigrants' cases after they're sent out of the country.
Artificial intelligence is changing the way we work — faster than many of us expected. From writing emails to screening job applications, AI tools are showing up in offices, warehouses and other workplaces. But are employers ready? How are they setting expectations and drawing ethical lines around using this powerful technology? MPR News host Angela Davis and her guests talk about the growing role of AI across different industries and how organizations are responding. Guests:James Holmberg is the co-founder of VILAS, an organization focused on helping businesses understand, navigate and explore using artificial intelligence. Eran Kahana is an attorney for Maslon LLP, a business law firm based in Minneapolis. He specializes in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, privacy and intellectual property law. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Chris Farrell is the senior economics contributor for MPR News and Marketplace.
From July 23, 2024: Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, sat down with Alexander Macgillivray, known to all as "amac," who was the former Principle Deputy Chief Technology Officer of the United States in the Biden Administration and General Counsel at Twitter.amac recently wrote a piece for Lawfare about making AI policy in a world of technological uncertainty, and Matt and Alan talked to him about how to do just that.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Trump is still stuck on exacting revenge against his rivals. He's ordering an investigation into whether former President Joe Biden's aides hid information about his alleged declining mental state and whether staffers were making decisions and using an auto-pen to sign Biden's name. We've got two lawyers joining us today. June Carbone is the Robina chair of law, science, and technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. She wrote the recently released “Fair Shake:Women and the Fight to Build a Just Economy.” Former federal prosecutor, and now defense attorney, David Katz weighs in on legal rulings, legal questions and always has an interesting take on angles where the law intersects with politics.
Nearly 44,000 Twin Cities students crossed into another district to attend school this year, using a process known as open enrollment, according to a new report published by Axios Twin Cities, a digital news outlet. According to their analysis, the number of students participating in open enrollment has grown every year for at least a decade.Meanwhile, research also shows racial segregation is worsening in schools, and some critics of the policy argue that open enrollment is one reason why. Kyle Stokes, a reporter with Axios, and Myron Orfield, the director of the University of Minnesota Law School's Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, joined Minnesota Now to talk about the history of open enrollment and how it's reshaping school districts in the Twin Cities.
Professors Richard Haigh and Dan Priel are joined by University Professor Jill Hasday from the University of Minnesota Law School. Her book exposes common understandings of American law and society. In what way? Because too many of the stories told about it are about We the Men. Courts, legislators, media and others have either ignored the struggles that women have made for equality, or exaggerate their successes. For over a century, the standard claims are that sexism is over and sex discrimination has been left behind. We the Men turns this narrative on its head -- with hundreds of examples, Professor Hasday shows us that there is still much to be done in this battle. Link to book: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/we-the-men-9780197800805?cc=ca&lang=en&
President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship has reignited debates over the 14th Amendment and the meaning of citizenship in America. Legal experts Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School analyze the legal challenges surrounding birthright citizenship, explore the constitutional and historical arguments on all sides of this debate, and discuss its broader implications for immigration. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2025) Trump v. Washington, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025) Trump v. New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2025) Amanda Frost, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers (2021) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2025) Ilan Wurman and Randy Barnett, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-27 (April 14, 2025) Gabriel “Jack” Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 54 (April 8, 2021) Gabriel J. Chin, “America Has Freaked Out Over Birthright Citizenship For Centuries,” Talking Points Memo (Aug. 2015) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Kurt Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
On May 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order which seeks to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. Legal scholars Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the scope of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Resources Gabriel J. Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review (April 8, 2021) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No.25-27 (April 14, 2025) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7 2025) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Amanda Frost, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, U.S. House of Representatives (Feb. 25, 2025) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
This Tax Day marks a shift in policy at the Internal Revenue Service, which is responsible for collecting federal taxes. Earlier in April, the Trump administration announced an agreement which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to ask the IRS for personal tax information of undocumented immigrants who are under criminal investigation. Several top IRS officials resigned following the announcement. Caleb Smith joined the show to break down what this means for undocumented Minnesotans. Smith is a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School's Tax Law Clinic.
Hosts Kelly Roskam, Tim Carey and Kari Still explore how courts are grappling with minimum age firearm regulations in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Alex McCourt, JD, PhD, MPH core faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, joins the show to share public health research on firearm risks among young adults. Special guest Professor Megan Walsh, JD, a visiting assistant clinical Professor of Law and the Director of the Gun Violence Prevention Law Clinic at the University of Minnesota Law School unpacks the shifting legal landscape in federal courts. ### 0:00 - Introduction and legal background 4:25 - Alex McCourt discusses the public health evidence behind age-based firearms laws 15:30 - Professor Megan Walsh, JD, shares the shifting legal landscape in federal courts 43:53 - Uncertainty around the law and what comes next
This panel will explore the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright as well as its major questions cases. What impact will overturning Chevron deference have on the major questions doctrine? How do the two doctrinal developments relate? How do they connect to the non-delegation doctrine? These and related questions will be examined.Featuring:Prof. Eric Bolinder, Assisant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of LawProf. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawProf. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
The National Constitution Center and the Federal Judicial Center convene leading historians for conversations on Reconstruction and the Constitution. Pamela Brandwein of the University of Michigan, Sherrilyn Ifill of Howard University School of Law, and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School explore the 14th Amendment and the history of Reconstruction. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center. Resources Ilan Wurman, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment (2020) Pamela Brandwein, Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction (2011) Sherrilyn Ifill, “Why are U.S. courts afraid of the 14th Amendment? Because it's radical,” The Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2023) Sherrilyn Ifill, “Yes, this is America: Why I'm Creating the 14th Amendment Center for Law and Democracy,” Substack (July 7, 2023) 14th Amendment Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 The Reconstruction Amendments Brown v. Board of Education Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at programs@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
China has announced a wide range of measures targeting US businesses minutes after new US tariffs on Chinese goods took effect. To discuss this Former White House press secretary, Sean Spicer and Professor Richard Painter, University of Minnesota Law School and Former Ethics Adviser to President George W. Bush.
Jury selection is underway Monday in the second trial of people charged in an alleged $250 million fraud scheme.President Donald Trump's executive order slapping tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China goes into effect Tuesday. Duties on goods imported from Canada and Mexico will be 25 percent, except for a 10 percent rate on Canadian energy, including oil, natural gas and electricity. And the University of Minnesota Law School is pausing its search for a new assistant dean of diversity, equity and inclusion.This is an MPR News morning update, hosted by Phil Picardi. Music by Gary Meister.Find these headlines and more at mprnews.org.Trial starts for alleged ringleader of massive COVID food fraudU of M Law School holds off on hiring assistant dean of DEIHere are some goods in the crosshairs of Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada and ChinaRead the latest edition of the Minnesota Today newsletter.Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or RSS.
TikTok is set to be banned in the U.S. in just nine days. Today, the company will try to convince the Supreme Court to strike the ban down — or at least put it on ice. And President-elect Donald Trump has requested the Supreme Court punt the ban until after he's taken office and can try to broker some sort of solution. Still, TikTok has some long odds. On POLITICO Tech, host Steven Overly talks with Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and former lawyer in the Justice Department, about what to watch for during today's arguments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In response to the compromise of telecommunication companies by the Chinese hacker group Salt Typhoon, senior officials from the FBI and CISA recommended that American citizens use encrypted messaging apps to minimize the chances of their communications being intercepted. This marks a departure in law enforcement's position on the use of encrypted communications. Susan Landau, Professor of Cyber Security and Policy in Computer Science at Tufts University, and Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Research Director and Senior Editor at Lawfare, sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Eugenia Lostri to talk about what the recent FBI recommendation in favor of the use of encrypted messaging apps means for the “Going Dark” debate. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) and Tarun Sharma (@tksharmalaw) go across the board in the sports law universe this week, opening up with Tarun's return and reflect on his journey from being a sports law Twitter aficionado to becoming a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, thanks in part to connections made through the podcast. The duo dives into an analysis of New Mexico State quarterback Diego Pavia's ongoing legal battle seeking an additional year of NCAA eligibility...Pavia's JUCO career and subsequent rise at New Mexico State, and his transfer to Vanderbilt, seeking to extend his playing years due to NCAA restrictions. The University of Florida's basketball coach Todd Golden is under a Title IX investigation and Golden's made a public response through a statement about engaging legal counsel for possible defamation actions. The two also discuss the bizarre mid-flight fight among Auburn basketball players which reportedly resulted in ripped clothing and necessitated an emergency landing. The show is capped off by the team discussing the arrest of former Detroit Lions linebacker Antoine Williams for his alleged participation in the January 6th Capitol riots.... While Dan ends the show with his “Bet of the Year” prediction, Jake Paul v. Mike Tyson? What are your thoughts? *** Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ConductDetrimental.com. Let us know if you want to join the team. As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental Host: Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) Featuring: Tarun Sharma (@tksharmalaw) Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (Watch on YouTube) Twitter | Instagram | TikTok | YouTube | Website | Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support
On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) and Tarun Sharma (@tksharmalaw) go across the board in the sports law universe this week, opening up with Tarun's return and reflect on his journey from being a sports law Twitter aficionado to becoming a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, thanks in part to connections made through the podcast. The duo dives into an analysis of New Mexico State quarterback Diego Pavia's ongoing legal battle seeking an additional year of NCAA eligibility...Pavia's JUCO career and subsequent rise at New Mexico State, and his transfer to Vanderbilt, seeking to extend his playing years due to NCAA restrictions. The University of Florida's basketball coach Todd Golden is under a Title IX investigation and Golden's made a public response through a statement about engaging legal counsel for possible defamation actions. The two also discuss the bizarre mid-flight fight among Auburn basketball players which reportedly resulted in ripped clothing and necessitated an emergency landing. The show is capped off by the team discussing the arrest of former Detroit Lions linebacker Antoine Williams for his alleged participation in the January 6th Capitol riots.... While Dan ends the show with his “Bet of the Year” prediction, Jake Paul v. Mike Tyson? What are your thoughts? *** Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ConductDetrimental.com. Let us know if you want to join the team. As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental Host: Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) Featuring: Tarun Sharma (@tksharmalaw) Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (Watch on YouTube) Twitter | Instagram | TikTok | YouTube | Website | Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support
Asylum is complex and can take a long time. Episode two of this three-part series does a deeper dive into the process of asylum in the United States. Hear about the different types of asylum, the requirements, and the challenges of legally acquiring status, as well as the avenues of support that are available for families. You'll hear from immigration attorney Sarah Brenes (Binger Center for New Americans, University of Minnesota Law School) about how the complexities of the asylum process can impact asylum-seeking families, the history of and recent changes to these processes, and what this means for child welfare professionals who work with these families.
Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, sits down with David Kris, founder of Culper Partners and the former Assistant Attorney General for National Security in the Obama administration, to talk about a new paper that David has published as part of Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract series, entitled "A Data Proxy for Clients of Cloud Service Providers.”Kris argues that cloud storage offers significant benefits for security and efficiency, but many organizations may be hesitant to adopt it due to the risk of secret disclosure: the practice by which law enforcement can compel cloud service providers to turn over customer data while legally prohibiting them from notifying the customer. To address this concern, Kris proposes the appointment of a "data proxy," a highly trusted individual (like a retired federal judge) who would be contractually authorized to represent the organization's interests when it cannot represent itself due to a nondisclosure order.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times among other newspaper outlets are facing mounting backlash after both recently declined to endorse a presidential candidate. The decisions have led to the resignations of multiple editorial writers from both publications and the editorial editor from the LA Times. More than two hundred thousand readers have quit their Washington Post subscriptions in protest. They are not the only publications that are changing it up editorially this election season. The Minnesota Star Tribune also announced earlier this year they will no longer endorse specific candidates. Jane Kirtley is professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota Law School. She joined Minnesota Now to discuss the decisions by media to refrain from endorsing a candidate.
In this episode, we dive into the systems, structures, and practices that are working against us. Because my goal isn't just that women (and I do mean all women) get a fair shake, but that we expect it. That we require it. Our guest is June Carbone, the Robina chair of law, science, and technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. Previously she served as the Edward A. Smith/Missouri chair of law, the constitution, and society at the University of Missouri at Kansas City; and as the associate dean for professional development and presidential professor of ethics and the common good at Santa Clara University School of Law. Basically, she's wicked smart and very well-researched. She has just released her new book Fair Shake: Women and the Fight to Build a Just Economy which she co-authored with two other incredible women. My call to action: consider, in addition to what you care most about and what you believe is best, what will move policy and opportunity forward for all women. It's time for us to think beyond just our own best interests. Buy June's Book: Fair Shake https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Fair-Shake/Naomi-Cahn/9781982115128 Like what you heard? Please rate and review
This week, we talk with a team of innovation leaders from the law firm Faegre Drinker. The guests included Shawn Swearingen, Chief Innovation Officer; David Gross, Design Lab co-founder; and Ruben Gonzalez, Design Lab Director. The discussion centered around the relaunch of Faegre Drinker's Legal Design Lab in Scottsdale, Arizona, exploring its origins, evolution, and impact on legal problem-solving. The Legal Design Lab's inception traces back eight or nine years when an associate at the firm, Helen Chacon, reconnected with her Stanford Law School friend Margaret Hagan, who was pioneering the concept of legal design. Intrigued by the idea of applying design thinking—a user-focused, empathetic approach to problem-solving long used in other industries—to the legal field, the firm embarked on a deep dive into the methodology. This included David (DJ) Gross auditing courses at Stanford's D-School and team members like Kate Rozavi designing courses on visual advocacy at the University of Minnesota Law School. The relaunch and relocation of the Design Lab to Scottsdale were influenced by several factors, notably the firm's merger that expanded its geographic footprint and the practical considerations brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The move allowed the firm to acquire a significantly larger and more cost-effective space. With input from architects, designers, and Margaret Hagan herself, the new lab was designed to be a flexible, creative environment featuring movable furniture and an industrial aesthetic, fostering collaboration and innovation. Throughout the podcast, the team shared concrete examples of how design thinking has been instrumental in solving complex legal challenges. One such example involved simplifying a profitability tool for lawyers by using a color-coded system akin to credit score reports, making it more accessible and actionable. Another highlighted the use of tennis balls to demystify crystallography during a jury trial, showcasing how visual aids and empathetic explanations can lead to successful outcomes. These instances underscore the lab's focus on user-centric solutions and visual advocacy to enhance understanding and efficiency in legal processes. The guests also discussed the challenges of integrating design thinking within the traditional legal framework, particularly in encouraging open-mindedness and collaborative participation among lawyers and clients. They emphasized the importance of a learning mindset, active listening, and the willingness to embrace creativity and risk-taking. To further disseminate these ideas, the team mentioned an eBook available on their website, aimed at introducing legal professionals to design thinking and visual advocacy concepts. Links: Faegre Drinker Design Lab video Faegre Drinker Picks Arizona for the Next-Gen Design Lab, American Lawyer E-book – Design Thinking and Visual Advocacy for Lawyers Two Point Oh! (FREE) Innovations in Visual Advocacy – Leading the way for design thinking in law, Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession. Advancing Company Goals – Design sprints that unlock Innovation, Corporate Counsel. Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Twitter: @gebauerm, or @glambert Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com Music: Jerry David DeCicca Transcript
Our podcast today focuses on negative option consumer contracts, i.e., agreements that allow a seller to assume a customer's silence is an acceptance of an offer. Such contracts are ubiquitous in today's marketplace. Today's guests are Kaitlin Caruso, a professor at the University of Maine Law School, and Prentiss Cox, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. They have written an article entitled, “Silence as Consumer Consent: Global Regulation of Negative Option Contracts.” The article is available on SSRN and will soon be published in the American University Law Review. The Professors first describe what they perceive to be some of the consumer harms resulting from the use of negative option contracts – consumers signing up for “free trial” offers that convert to term contracts requiring consumers to pay periodic fees after the free trial period has expired; credit card “add-on” products which are sold through telemarketing, like credit life and disability insurance; subscription contracts which make it difficult for consumers to cancel; subscription contracts for services, which are not used for lengthy periods of time while the consumer continues to pay periodic fees. The Professors then describe the existing federal and state statutes and FTC regulations and why they are inadequate to protect consumers. They point out that the current FTC negative option rule was promulgated decades before the development of the Internet and obviously does not begin to deal with online sales of goods and services. Instead, the FTC rule is intended to deal with mail order sales like the “Book-of-the-Month” club. While the FTC has proposed a new negative option rule which is a vast improvement over the existing FTC rule, it is unclear when or if a final rule will be promulgated. The Professors also describe the federal Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act, and the FTC‘s Telemarketing Sales Rule which tangentially pertain to negative option contracts. Finally, the professors discuss a patchwork quilt of state laws (mostly part of state UDAP statutes) which deal with negative option contracts. After surveying the existing federal and state laws, as well as negative option laws enacted in many foreign countries, the Professors describe the core elements of what a negative option law (be it state or federal) should contain in order to protect consumers. The core elements are: 1. A prohibition against converting a “free trial” offer into a term contract; 2. A prohibition against automatically converting a negative option contract into another term contract with the contract instead becoming a month-to- month contract. Alternatively, the negative option contract could convert to a term contract, which could then be canceled during the first 90 days after the consumer sees a charge on a credit card statement. 3. If a subscription to services is not used by the consumer for at least one year, then the seller must notify the consumer of the dormancy, and if the service remains dormant for another three months thereafter, then the seller must cease charging the consumer for the service. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts today's episode.
This episode, To Speak or Not to Speak: Balancing Corporate Interests and Pressures in External Communications features Minnesota Law alumnus and former Vice President, Chief Counsel, Employment Law at Medtronic, Michelle Miller ‘86. Miller's lecture is on the corporate decision making process regarding public statements in an age of influence by, and expectations of, social media, employees, customers and institutional investors. This event was recorded on September 30, 2024, as part of Minnesota Law's Matheson Lecture in Corporate Governance series. You can watch the event recording on the Minnesota Law YouTube channel. () A transcript of this episode is available here: z.umn.edu/Ep43Transcript Learn more about the University of Minnesota Law School by visiting law.umn.edu
Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Tomorrow marks the 23rd anniversary of the attack and this year's Law Society human rights lecture will focus on the legacy of September 11th. Giving the lecture is Fionnula Ní Aoláin, Professor of Law, Public Policy and Society at the University of Minnesota Law School and Professor of Law at the Queens University, Belfast.
Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein sits down with Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor of Law at St. Thomas University College of Law, Co-Director of the Center for Law and AI Risk, and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare. They discuss a new paper that Kevin has published as part of Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract paper series titled “Prioritizing International AI Research, Not Regulations.”Frazier sheds light on the current state of AI regulation, noting that it's still in its early stages and is often under-theorized and under-enforced. He underscores the need for more targeted research to better understand the specific risks associated with AI models. Drawing parallels to risk research in the automobile industry, Frazier also explores the potential role of international institutions in consolidating expertise and establishing legitimacy in AI risk research and regulation.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From October 28, 2022: There's been a lot of discussion about whether Donald Trump should be indicted. Lately, that discussion has focused on the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-lago or the Jan. 6 committee's revelations about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. But what about his speech on the ellipse on Jan. 6 when he told a crowd of thousands to “fight like hell,” and they went on to attack the Capitol? Isn't that incitement?Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Alan Rozenshtein, a senior editor at Lawfare and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School. Alan and Jed explained the complicated First Amendment jurisprudence protecting political speech, even when it leads to violence, and why they believe that given everything we know now, Trump may in fact be criminally liable. They also reference Alan and Jed's law review article in Constitutional Commentary, “January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Solution.”To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, sat down with Alexander Macgillivray, known to all as "amac," who was the former Principle Deputy Chief Technology Officer of the United States in the Biden Administration and General Counsel at Twitter.amac recently wrote a piece for Lawfare about making AI policy in a world of technological uncertainty, and Matt and Alan talked to him about how to do just that.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and Nick Bednar, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the decades-long Chevron doctrine that required courts to defer to reasonable interpretations of their statutes.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions.In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare; David Rubenstein, James R. Ahrens Chair in Constitutional Law and Director of the Robert J. Dole Center for Law and Government at Washburn University School of Law; and Dean Ball, Research Fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, join Kevin Frazier, a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to discuss a novel and wide-reaching AI bill, SB 1047, pending before the California State Assembly and AI regulation more generally.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From March 22, 2021: Benjamin Wittes sat down on Lawfare Live with Seamus Hughes, the deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, and Alan Rozenshtein, a Lawfare senior editor and professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, to talk about the group of cases that have been filed in connection with the January 6 riot and insurrection. They talked about the database that Hughes is building and maintaining of cases, defendants and charges filed in connection with January 6; the pattern of charges; what the picture looks like so far; if it is likely to get closer to the president and his inner circle and if it will result in a series of seditious conspiracy charges.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Case Interview Preparation & Management Consulting | Strategy | Critical Thinking
Welcome to an interview with the authors of Fair Shake: Women and the Fight to Build a Just Economy, Naomi Cahn, June Carbone, and Nancy Levit. This book explains that the system that governs our economy—a winner-take-all economy—is the root cause of these myriad problems. The WTA economy self-selects for aggressive, cutthroat business tactics, which creates a feedback loop that sidelines women. The authors, three legal scholars, call this feedback loop “the triple bind”: if women don't compete on the same terms as men, they lose; if women do compete on the same terms as men, they're punished more harshly for their sharp elbows or actual misdeeds; and when women see that they can't win on the same terms as men, they take themselves out of the game (if they haven't been pushed out already). With odds like these stacked against them, it's no wonder women feel like, no matter how hard they work, they can't get ahead. Naomi Cahn is the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, as well as the Co-Director of the Family Law Center. Cahn is the author or editor of numerous books written for both academic and trade publishers, including Red Families v. Blue Families and Homeward Bound. In 2017, Cahn received the Harry Krause Lifetime Achievement in Family Law Award from the University of Illinois College of Law and in 2024 she was inducted into the Clayton Alumni Hall of Fame. June Carbone is the Robina Chair of Law, Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. Previously she has served as the Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, the Constitution and Society at the University of Missouri at Kansas City; and as the Associate Dean for Professional Development and Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has written From Partners to Parents and co-written Red Families v. Blue Families; Marriage Markets; and Family Law. She is a co-editor of the International Survey of Family Law. Nancy Levit is the Associate Dean for Faculty and holds a Curator's Professorship at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. Professor Levit has been voted Outstanding Professor of the Year five times by students and was profiled in Dean Michael Hunter Schwartz's book, What the Best Law Teachers Do. She has received the N.T. Veatch Award for Distinguished Research and Creative Activity and the Missouri Governor's Award for Teaching Excellence. She is the author of The Gender Line and co-author of Feminist Legal Theory; The Happy Lawyer; The Good Lawyer; and Jurisprudence—Classical and Contemporary. Get Fair Shake here: https://rb.gy/r2q7rw Here are some free gifts for you: Overall Approach Used in Well-Managed Strategy Studies free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/OverallApproach McKinsey & BCG winning resume free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/resumepdf Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo
The most expensive car ride someone may take in their life is an ambulance ride, which racks up to a whopping average of 1,200 dollars. Most individuals probably cannot or will not pay that bill outright, meaning it will serve as a form of debt to them.So, how is credit debt any different from more “voluntary” types of debt and how does it impact patient credit scores?On today's episode, Host Gabrielle Bejarano speaks with Michelle Dove, Chief Corporate Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer at IC System, to talk about recent and upcoming changes in credit reporting in the healthcare sector and how this will impact patients. Bejarano and Dove also discussed…1. How paid healthcare debt will no longer be credit-reported2. Medical account reporting time frame changes and the impact on patients and the industry3. The pending change in the debt threshold for credit reportingDove elaborated on how the current and upcoming changes will impact patients. “There are positives—the patient gets more time, but I think the negative is it takes away one method of communicating with the patient to help them understand their account,” she stated.Dove is Chief Compliance Officer and General Counsel at IC Systems and ensures documentation complies with federal, state, and local laws. She has previous experience as an attorney at Bassford Remele, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, and Rider Bennet, LLP. Dove has a B.A. in Political Science and Psychology from the University of Michigan and earned her J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School.IC System has over 85 years of experience in medical and dental debt collection, rent recovery and other business collections. For more information, visit https://www.icsystem.com/.
Welcome to Strategy Skills episode 453, featuring an interview with the authors of Fair Shake: Women and the Fight to Build a Just Economy, Naomi Cahn, June Carbone, and Nancy Levit. This book explains that the system that governs our economy—a winner-take-all economy—is the root cause of these myriad problems. The WTA economy self-selects for aggressive, cutthroat business tactics, which creates a feedback loop that sidelines women. The authors, three legal scholars, call this feedback loop “the triple bind”: if women don't compete on the same terms as men, they lose; if women do compete on the same terms as men, they're punished more harshly for their sharp elbows or actual misdeeds; and when women see that they can't win on the same terms as men, they take themselves out of the game (if they haven't been pushed out already). With odds like these stacked against them, it's no wonder women feel like, no matter how hard they work, they can't get ahead. Naomi Cahn is the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, as well as the Co-Director of the Family Law Center. Cahn is the author or editor of numerous books written for both academic and trade publishers, including Red Families v. Blue Families and Homeward Bound. In 2017, Cahn received the Harry Krause Lifetime Achievement in Family Law Award from the University of Illinois College of Law and in 2024 she was inducted into the Clayton Alumni Hall of Fame. June Carbone is the Robina Chair of Law, Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. Previously she has served as the Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, the Constitution and Society at the University of Missouri at Kansas City; and as the Associate Dean for Professional Development and Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has written From Partners to Parents and co-written Red Families v. Blue Families; Marriage Markets; and Family Law. She is a co-editor of the International Survey of Family Law. Nancy Levit is the Associate Dean for Faculty and holds a Curator's Professorship at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. Professor Levit has been voted Outstanding Professor of the Year five times by students and was profiled in Dean Michael Hunter Schwartz's book, What the Best Law Teachers Do. She has received the N.T. Veatch Award for Distinguished Research and Creative Activity and the Missouri Governor's Award for Teaching Excellence. She is the author of The Gender Line and co-author of Feminist Legal Theory; The Happy Lawyer; The Good Lawyer; and Jurisprudence—Classical and Contemporary. Get Fair Shake here: https://rb.gy/r2q7rw Here are some free gifts for you: Overall Approach Used in Well-Managed Strategy Studies free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/OverallApproach McKinsey & BCG winning resume free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/resumepdf Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo
What Fresh Hell: Laughing in the Face of Motherhood | Parenting Tips From Funny Moms
Contrary to popular belief, the gender wage gap is widening, not narrowing. Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, authors of FAIR SHAKE: WOMEN AND THE FIGHT TO BUILD A JUST ECONOMY, discuss why working women still lag behind men both in wage equity and in positions of power. Naomi Cahn is the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law. June Carbone is the Robina chair of law, science, and technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. Naomi, June, and Amy discuss: How the "winner takes all" economy rewards men and not women The "triple bind" that sidelines women in the workplace How things get even more complicated for working parents What solutions for this problem look like at a societal, organizational, and personal level Here's where you can find more of June and Naomi: June Carbone: https://law.umn.edu/profiles/june-carbone Naomi Cahn: https://www.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/nrc8g/2915359 @carbonej and @NaomiCahn on X Buy FAIR SHAKE: https://bookshop.org/a/12099/9781982115128 We love the sponsors that make this show possible! You can always find all the special deals and codes for all our current sponsors on our website: https://www.whatfreshhellpodcast.com/p/promo-codes/ mom friends, funny moms, parenting advice, parenting experts, parenting tips, mothers, families, parenting skills, parenting strategies, parenting styles, busy moms, self-help for moms, manage kid's behavior, teenager, tween, child development, family activities, family fun, parent child relationship, decluttering, kid-friendly, invisible workload, default parent, feminism, feminist economy, feminist economics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In early February, the European Union approved a major overhaul of its immigration laws. If approved by EU member states, the pact will drastically curtail the rights of migrants and asylum seekers entering the European Union. It's part of a trend we're seeing all over the world, including here in the U.S. Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Steve Meili, Professor of International Human Rights Law at University of Minnesota Law School. They discussed the EU Pact's new provisions, why critics are calling them a violation of human rights law, and how asylum and migration law is evolving globally. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Back in the 1990s, Minnesota was gaining population from other places in the U.S. But in recent years, that trend reversed, and now more people leave Minnesota for other states each year than move here.The net loss is a concern to state officials who want to fill jobs. So, this month, the state's tourism office Explore Minnesota launched a first-ever advertising campaign encouraging people in other parts of the country to resettle in Minnesota. Coming up at 9 a.m. on Monday, MPR News host Angela Davis talks about what's drawing people to Minnesota — from job seekers to climate refugees to people attracted to the state's more liberal laws and policies — and what life is like for them once they get here.Guests: Lauren Bennett McGinty is the executive director of Explore Minnesota, the state tourism agency. Earlier this month, the agency launched a new national advertising campaign to encourage people to move to Minnesota. Sapna Kumar is a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. She moved to Minnesota last summer from Texas after spending 15 years as a professor at the University of Houston Law Center in Texas. Her work focuses on intellectual property rights and patent law.
Among the many horrific stories emerging out of the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza are instances of sexual and gender-based violence. It's an issue that is pervasive in many armed conflicts, and yet, even now, it's often treated as an afterthought. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one of the lesser-appreciated ones is the limitation of existing law. Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett spoke with Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School and a former UN Special Rapporteur. They talked about the legal framework around sexual and gender-based violence, the challenges of prosecuting these acts of violence as international crimes, and where the law fails.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In the past few weeks, there have been several notable developments in lawsuits seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 election under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a case against Trump but invited the petitioners to refile once Trump won the GOP nomination. A court in Michigan rejected a challenge to Trump's eligibility on the grounds that Congress, not the courts, should ultimately decide. And, most recently, a Colorado trial court held that, although Trump did engage in insurrection before and during Jan. 6, Section 3 does not apply to presidents.As these and other cases make their way through the courts, and with the potential that the Supreme Court will at some point weight in, we're bringing you another portion of a conference held last month at the University of Minnesota Law School (for a previous excerpt, see the November 1 edition of the Lawfare Podcast). This panel, focusing on the interplay between the Section 3 challenges and election law, was moderated by University of Minnesota Law School Professor Nick Bednar, and featured Professor Ned Foley of the Ohio State College of Law, Professor Derek Muller of Notre Dame Law School, and Professor Andrea Katz of Washington University School of Law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In the wake of Donald Trump's role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, lawsuits in states around the country are seeking to disqualify him from the 2024 election. Challengers to his eligibility invoke Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides in relevant part that "No person shall . . . hold any office . . . under the United States . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."As of now, there are nearly two dozen states in which litigation is ongoing to bar Trump from the ballot, and that number is only expected to grow. Earlier this week, a Colorado district began a week-long bench trial and, this Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear oral argument. And if a state does disqualify Trump, the United States Supreme Court will no doubt immediately hear the case.On Monday October 30, the University of Minnesota Law School held a conference with leading law and political science scholars on "Section 3, Insurrection, and the 2024 Election: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Bar Donald Trump from the Presidency?" Today's Lawfare Podcast is a recording of one of the conference panels, which focused on the political implications of the Section 3 cases.The moderator was Larry Jacobs of the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, and the panelists were Julia Azari, a Professor of Political Science at Marquette University; Ilya Somin, a Professor of Law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School; and Eric Segall, a Professor of Law at the Georgia State College of Law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The term “spyware” refers to software that's designed to infiltrate, monitor, and extract sensitive information from a user's device without their knowledge or consent. Perhaps the most infamous example of the harm that spyware can do is the 2018 killing of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi government operatives, who used spyware to track Khashoggi before luring him to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered. But spyware use is not just limited to repressive autocracies. It's frequently both developed and used by liberal democracies, a practice that has generated increasing concern over the past few years.To talk about spyware and its potential regulation under international law, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, a Regents Professor and the Robina Chair in Law, Public Policy, and Society at the University of Minnesota Law School, where she also directs the Human Rights Center. Most importantly for this conversation, she's also the United Nation's Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, a position she's held since 2017. As part of that role, she recently published a report on the Global Regulation of the Counter-Terrorism Spyware Technology Trade. Alan spoke with Fionnuala about her findings and what, if anything, can be done to make spyware compliant with human rights.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
