Podcast appearances and mentions of Nancy Gertner

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Today:Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner discusses a judge's ruling that federal officials unconstitutionally violated the free speech rights of pro-Palestinian protesters.Plus, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley discusses the government shutdown.

Harvard national security expert Juliette Kayyem with reaction to defense secretary Pete Hegseth's summit for hundreds of top military leaders where he railed against America's greatest threat: beards, guts and diversity.Forrmer Mass GOP chair Jennifer Nassour and former Democratic state rep Jay Kaufman discuss what needs to happen to reform the Massachusetts state legislature. The Culture Show's Jared Bowen talks all things arts and culture, including why the biggest stars in comedy: Dave Chappelle, Kevin Hart, Boston's own Bill Burr, are getting flack for agreeing to appear at a comedy festival in Saudi Arabia.Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner on a Boston judge ruling the Trump administration unlawfully targeted international students for pro-Palestinian activism, and the Supreme Court's new term.Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley talks about the Democrats' role in the first full-blown government shutdown since 2018.

Nancy Gertner weighs in on legal fights against Trump's D.C. takeoverKhalil Gibran Muhammad offers thoughts on Trump meddling with the SmithsonianBill McKibben says the sun is “having a moment,” 4.6 billion years on. He'll join to discuss the future for solar energy, in light of his new book “Here Comes the Sun.”Voices from Ukraine is a new original musical that's touring New England, with a cast of Ukrainian actors sharing their stories of life during wartime. We'll talk with two of those teenage actors, Sofiia Kopytko and Taisiia Grygorova... plus Susan Mathison from Common Man for Ukraine. 

For this week's media analysis segment “Press Play," BU Professor of Journalism and Emerging Media Studies Joan Donovan discusses how mainstream media headlines fail to capture the real story, and how the White House is losing control over Epstein conspiracy theories.Then, it's Live Music Friday with Boston-based rapper and music coach RedShaydez, who is leading a new artist development program called Music Jumpstart. She joins alongside rapper and producer JoiBeatz.Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner on the rule of law under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the latest out of the supreme court, and what's up with Alan Dershowitz on Martha's Vineyard.We talk with Rhode Island filmmaker Stephen Smith, an arctic expedition leader, and Brown University polar oceanographer Chris Horvat about their documentary “Beneath the Polar Sun,” ahead of its airing on GBH 44.

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner on a growing number of whistleblowers claiming top DOJ officials said the department could ignore numerous court orders. Is this the new normal under President Trump, and what does it say about our courts' ability to check the powers of the executive? Former Boston Globe editor, now head of BU Journalism, Brian McGrory on more news of Steward Health CEO Ralph de la Torre – a bankruptcy case alleges he and other executives defrauded the company of over $200 million, leading to the hospital chain's collapse. We get Brian's take on that and other media news.Boston Globe travel writer Christopher Muther explains how a drop in international tourists — namely proud Canadians boycotting Trump policies — is hurting the U.S. economy. And we'll get his no-holds-barred review on live music at Logan airport. Mass League of Community Health Centers' CEO Michael Curry discusses how the tragic nursing home fire in Fall River is prompting a closer look at how the state regulates those facilities. Plus, he talks about the public health impacts of Trump's war on DEI. 

Retired federal court judge Nancy Gertner analyzes a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively ended nationwide injunctions, the Trump administration's stance with the judicial branch, and discusses the difficulty for judges in sentencing criminal defendants.

With the Upcoming Senate Confirmation Vote on Emil Bove, Will Trump Get His "Roy Cohn" on the Supreme Court? | We Are Past a Constitutional Crisis and Should be Working on Restoring Our Democracy and Reviving the Constitution | A Way Out of America's Descent Into Authoritarianism backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia bsky.app/profile/ianmastersmedia.bsky.social facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Anand Giridharadas, political commentator behind The Ink newsletter, discusses Zohran Mamdani bringing democratic socialism back into the conversation.Economist Juliet Schor discusses her new book Four Days a Week: The Life-Changing Solution for Reducing Employee Stress, Improving Well-Being, and Working Smarter.Boston Globe travel writer Christopher Muther discusses the Godfrey Hotel making a top 10 list, and his picks for travel when he really wants to escape.Cecilia Lizotte, chef and owner of Suya Joint, joins to discuss the ICE detainment of her brother Paul, manager at the restaurant.Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner joins for a SCOTUS end-of-term roundup.

Today:The Charles River Jazz Festival occurs July 12 at the Herter Park Amphitheater on Soldier's Field Road. More info and and to reserve a free ticket go to BostonJazzFoundation.org. Festival founder Seba Molnar joinswith foundation co-founder Moriah Phillips, and vice-chair Jess Curin. They all perform.And, retired federal judge Nancy Gertner reviews the Supreme Court's end-of-term rulings released today, including limiting orders blocking the Trump administration's birthright citizenship ban.

Eric Deggans joins for Press Play. Eric is the TV critic for NPR and the Knight Chair in Journalism and Media Ethics at Washington and Lee University. He discusses Trump's threat to sue CNN and the New York Times and other media stories from this week.For Live Music Friday we talk with Charles River Jazz Festival founder Seba Molnar and two other organizers about the free festival and a new era for emerging jazz artists in Boston. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner joins briefly to talk about today's SCOTUS decisions on birthright citizenship and the ACA's preventative care mandate.Environmentalist Bill McKibben talks about provisions in Trump's spending bill that stand to worsen the climate crisis, and how inaction is making our summers hotter. Media maven Sue O'Connell (NBC10 Boston) joins for a reflection on the Karen Read trial, Trump's use of swearwords this week, Jeff Bezos' Venetian wedding and more.

An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. But judges are under attack.  Therefore, we must stand the post and protect judges from intimidation, unlawful prosecution, incredulous calls to impeach, or worse. And, when it comes to federal criminal sentencing, judicial independence is also crucial to the fair administration of justice.   But judicial independence has been undermined for decades by adherence to the stringent, dehumanizing, US sentencing guidelines. Since 2005, these guidelines have been discretionary, yet many judges and lawyers continue to use them rigidly, leading to undesirable outcomes for clients. Therefore, attorneys need to be more creative and comprehensive in their sentencing approach, and help the judges understand that the guidelines are not a useful tool to determine a human being's ultimate fate.  This discussion features Nancy Gertner, former US District Court Judge and current Harvard Law Professor, who provides valuable insights on these topics. The first half of our discussion addresses the actions of the Trump administration and its efforts to influence the judiciary. For those interested solely in sentencing advocacy without political context, please proceed to the second half of the podcast, approximately at the 38:00 mark, for a master-class in sentencing advocacy from a former federal judge. This segment offers essential information for every defense lawyer and client facing sentencing. #JudicialIndependence, #SentencingJustice, or #DignityOverData   IN THIS EPISODE:   Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan's arrest and prosecution for allegedly obstructing ICE; Assessing the merits of the charge against Judge Dugan; How ICE's conduct presents its own form of obstruction of justice because it denies people their day in court and increases the chances of bringing harm and violence to innocents; The adminstration's effort to target judges for arrest, impeachment, or worse;  Whether the administration can defy a judge's orders without consequence;  A word on the plight of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia; The new pardon paradigm and how it may impact sentencing; Judge Gertner's incredible sentencing advocacy advice, which includes the power of narrative, her take on sentencing mitigation films, irrational adherence to guidelines, lackluster attorney performance, the importance of allocution, telling the story of prison, and more! Judge Gertner's take on using A/I in court (in the context of an A/I generated video of the deceased victim giving his sentencing statement from beyond the grave); The legacy of Justice Souter, who passed away the morning we recorded this podcast.   Commentary: A former judge's call to eliminate mandatory-minimum sentencing laws 150 Former Judges Tell Pam Bondi They're Not 'Deranged' AI used to make video of deceased victim deliver impact statement in court : NPR

Today:Trump deployed the national guard in California, without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. We talk through the existential questions of presidential authority with retired federal judge Nancy Gertner. Plus, her suspicions about the government's new charges of human trafficking against a man they wrongly deported, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.And, journalist Adam Chandler argues in his new book “99% Perspiration” that the American Dream equating hard work with success has turned out to be more of an American fantasy.

Carbon Leaf joins for Live Music Friday, head of a performance at the Spire in Plymouth.Dan Primack is the business editor for Axios. He joins to talk about Trump's business deals in the Middle East, Walmart's tariff price hikes and HBO's big re-re-re-brand to HBO Max.Director Gene Tempest & American Experience EP Cameo George talk about their latest project, “Mr. Polaroid,” a new documentary about the invention of the Polaroid camera (which started in Cambridge). Armani Thomas is a local artist who makes mini-paintings of Boston scenes and leaves the canvases up around the city. He chronicles his work on TikTok as @armoneythomas. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner discusses yesterday's SCOTUS arguments on the 14th Amendment, along with other contested Trump executive orders and the sense that "rule of law" is ending in America.

Food policy analyst Corby Kummer discusses the hollowing out of middle-class restaurant and how local restaurants are grappling with tariffs.Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner discusses the legal battle over the mistakenly deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia.Boston Globe travel writer Christopher Muther discusses the sexy clowns of Montreal and the growing number of Americans applying for dual citizenship.Princeton professor Khalil Gibran Muhammad discusses Trump's attack on the Smithsonian as an attempt to erase Black history, and the latest on Harvard University vs. the Trump Administration.

Today:Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner discusses the Trump administration's defiance of a court order to return the wrongfully deported Abrego Garcia – still locked up in a mega prison in El Salvador. Meanwhile, in the Oval Office, Trump welcomed El Salvadoran president Bukele with open arms.And, Princeton's Khalil Gribran Muhammad discusses which schools are standing up and which schools are rolling over for Trump, while news breaks of Harvard's intention to defy Trump's demands.

Anand Giridharadas of The Ink newsletter discusses national politics & this weekend's protests across the countryRetired federal judge Nancy Gertner discusses Trump's third term talk and the latest on cases before the Supreme Court.Fiona Hill, senior fellow at Brookings and was the senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council during Trump's first administration on what has/hasn't changed.Reverends Irene Monroe and Emmett Price discuss the decline of empathy as a valued trait in certain faith communities

Live Music Friday with Cuban-born jazz pianist and Berklee professor Zahili Zamora. She's performing next Thursday at Long Live Roxbury Brewing Company.  NBC Boston commentator Sue O'Connell discusses the latest news on the Karen Read trial, including blogger "Turtleboy" pleading not guilty to witness intimidation charges. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner reacts to Justice Roberts' rebuke of Trump on the issue of judicial impeachment, and more on Trump ignoring judicial orders. Our 'Press Play' media segment with GBH's Adam Reilly and Callie Crossley on the media's coverage of the Trump administration and coverage of the Boston mayoral race.

Today:Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner rings alarm bells on Trump's attack of the American legal system, comparing his intimidation and consolidation of power to that of Hungary's Viktor Orban.And, Cuban-born jazz pianist Zahili Zamora joins for Live Music Friday, at the Boston Public Library.

We bring you live audio from the House Oversight Committee's hearing of Democratic mayors, including Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who faced questions about whether their city's "sanctuary" policies violate federal immigration laws. Plus, analysis of the hearing from former federal judge Nancy Gertner, NAACP's Michael Curry and GBH political reporter Adam Reilly. Our final hour is "Ask the AG" with Attorney General Andrea Campbell. 

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner argues we need to take a step back and look at the pattern of Trump's behavior in the context of authoritarian playbooks, not just individual executive orders. And, she tells us about her work with State Democracy Defenders.And, we zoom in on one issue with Sophia Hall of the Lawyers for Civil Rights, challenging Trump's order to get rid of birthright citizenship on behalf of pregnant undocumented women who fear their children will be born without a state. 

Today:Trust in judicial institutions is historically low. We talk with Communities For Restorative Justice executive director Erin Freeborn, and retired federal judge Nancy Gertner about the impact of restorative justice efforts.Then, Cambridge's beloved tiny bar & music venue “Toad” is coming back, while Christopher's next door becomes McCarthy's. We talk with the McCarthys themselves and hear from their family band for Live Music Friday. 

We opened the lines to discuss taking care of your lawn. Live Music Friday with a performance from the Berklee Music Inclusion Ensemble, all about creating space for musicians with disabilities to play & innovate. Leola Hampton & her daughter Maya Scott are featured in GBH's fabulous new documentary commemorating 50 years since the start of busing in Boston. They joined to reflect.Dr. Katherine Gergen Barnett talked about flu season shots, and her latest op-ed for the Globe on better systems to support people coming out of prison.Nancy Gertner on what to expect re: the special counsel investigation into Donald Trump landing on the desk of District Court Judge Tanya S. ChutkanShirley Leung on her latest reporting re: Black leaders exiting Boston, and the latest re: Wu's property tax proposalWe ended the show by discussing the current it girl: Moo Deng.

Is our country in a civics education crisis? We got your thoughts. Fabiola Mendez & Elsa Mosquera are our guests for Live Music Friday this week, ahead of the free Fiesta en la Plaza taking place throughout Latinx Heritage Month in Boston. Ela is the co-founder of Agora Cultural Architects, who organized the festival. Fabiola is an award-winning cuatro player.Boston Globe reporters Jessica Bartlett & Mark Arsenault talk about their latest Spotlight reporting on Ralph de la Torre and the collapse of Steward Health Care.Transportation secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt joins for her first-ever interview on BPR. She talks about ongoing projects for MassDOT like the East-West Coast Rail, Cape Cod Bridges, the Allston Multimodal project and more. Then we read your texts on the court case between an estranged couple fighting over who gets to keep the $70,000 diamond engagement ring. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner joins us from her "she-shed" in the woods and reacts to new GOP efforts to block mail-in ballots in swing states, a New York appeals court rejecting two new attempts by Trump to lift his gag order in his hush money case. And, she has thoughts on the engagement ring case. Then we opened the phone lines to debate the merits and pitfalls of kids getting cut during sport tryouts. 

Charlie Sennott, founder of the GroundTruth Project, to discuss the latest developments in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.And we asked listeners about the start of school, about dress codes, phone rules and the price of school supplies. GBH executive arts editor Jared Bowen discusses "The Apprentice" Trump biopic, and the latest debate over AI in the arts.Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner discusses Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's openness to "enforceable" SCOTUS ethics rules, and the latest in Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump about January 6.Worcester-based Love Your Labels is hosting their annual Queer AF Fashion and Arts Show, coinciding with Worcester Pride this week and next. Love Your Labels founder Joshua Croke and drag queen DaishaDore Famouz join.We revisited our conversation about the meaning of an upside down pineapple and read your texts. CNN's John King joins via zoom to discuss the latest in national politics. Then we opened the phone lines to talk to you about the merits and frivolousness of the U.S. penny.

NBC political director Chuck Todd gave his national political roundup.Then we opened up the phone and text lines to talk about AI deepfakes. Are you scared of their political impact?Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner discussed the latest developments in Trump's legal cases, and Biden's latest push on student debt relief.Tech writer Andy Ihnatko talked about the latest tech news, including the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit against Google.Embrace Boston's Imari Paris Jeffries discussed Trump's race-baiting and Boston Mayor Wu's demolition plan for White Stadium.Food policy analyst Corby Kummer discussed Italy's blue crab invasion and salmon farms in Patagonia facing growing opposition.Then, we celebrated New England's rich history of musical jingles. Who do you call when your windshield's busted?

Best Of BPR 8/09: Grace Kelly Performs & Nancy Gertner Talks SCOTUS Reform

Best Of BPR 6/25: Livingston Taylor For The Children & Nancy Gertner On SCOTUS' Slow Walk

Best Of BPR 6/25: Livingston Taylor For The Children & Nancy Gertner On SCOTUS' Slow Walk

A Georgia appeals court has halted the election subversion conspiracy case against former President Donald Trump and several of his co-defendants until a panel of judges rules on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified, the latest indication this trial won't occur before election day in November. Also, Judge Eileen Cannon, who's overseeing his classified documents trial, revamped the timetable, pushing several pre-trial hearings later. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner, former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, and CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen share their thoughts on the new developments. Plus, Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, was asked by The Washington Post how his fellow evangelicals reconcile their faith with the former president's behavior. “Character does matter, and individual voters will make those assessments. But I think that the idea that either voters of faith or all voters disqualify someone because of moral failings in the past is just out of step with who the American people are," Reed told the Post. Anderson gets reaction from Russell Moore, editor in chief of Christianity Today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, join us as we discuss the critical topic of winning legal cases for clients harmed by toxic mold, featuring special guest Kristina Baehr, an experienced and dedicated lawyer specializing in mold-related cases. Key Points ✅ Why attorneys historically do not take on mold-related litigation cases and why this needs to change ✅ Kristina's own personal story overcoming mold-related illness, being forced out of her home and becoming a hero and advocate for clients suffering from environmental toxicity. ✅ More on other environmental cases, such as the US Navy spill with jet fuel in Hawaii and how environmental medicine is reaching its way in to the legal system to help those patients who have been harmed Kristina Baehr Kristina is a national trial lawyer who represents sick people against the companies that made them sick. She founded Just Well Law to help clients recover financially so that they can rebuild their health and their lives. Kristina is used to high profile, high stakes litigation. As an Assistant US Attorney, Kristina then represented the United States in civil actions, including catastrophic personal injury. She defended Army doctors accused of medical malpractice, USPS drivers after catastrophic accidents, the Air Force in premises liability, and the VA and FAA in employment disputes.  After tragedy hit her own family, she returned to the plaintiffs' side and founded Just Well Law to help other families in crisis. She built the personal injury firm she couldn't find for her own family. Health and wellness require financial resources, and Kristina is relentless in pursuing the maximum recovery for her clients because she has been there too. Kristina attended Princeton University and then Yale Law School. Committed to using the law as a tool of empowerment, she has helped people living with HIV/AIDS in Uganda find financial freedom, founded the domestic violence clinic at Yale Law School, and helped the Ministry of Justice of Liberia launch a sex crimes prosecution unit with the Carter Center. She served as a federal clerk for Nancy Gertner in the District of Massachusetts. And she teaches trial lawyers as an instructor for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.  https://www.well.law/ https://www.instagram.com/justwelllaw  https://www.facebook.com/justwelllaw  https://www.linkedin.com/company/just-well-law-plc 

Best Of BPR 5/14: Shaleen Title Goes Behind The Marijuana Rescheduling Headlines & Trump's Election Interference Mishegoss With Nancy Gertner

Keith Davidson, the former attorney of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, continued his testimony walking the jury through the $130,000 hush money deal he negotiated on behalf of Daniels. The defense attempted to paint Davidson as a shady lawyer who negotiated other deals involving high-profile celebrities. And, while questioning digital evidence analyst Douglas Daus prosecutors played the phone conversation Michael Cohen secretly recorded in September 2016, and CNN exclusively obtained, featuring Trump taking an active role in the McDougal deal. New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman joins Anderson and his panel of legal experts to discuss what she observed in court today, as well as perspective from retired federal judge Nancy Gertner.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will not dismiss the former president's classified documents case based on his claim he had the authority to take classified or sensitive documents under The Presidential Records Act. But in the same order, Judge Cannon also pushed back against special counsel Jack Smith's request that she make a final decision on whether the theory can be used at the trial, so that prosecutors could appeal to the 11th Circuit. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner joins AC360 to discuss Judge Cannon's ruling. Plus, Gary Tuchman travels to Cairo, Illinois to see how residents are preparing for the influx of eclipse seekers they'll get on Monday. The city is one of several in the country that will experience eclipse totality, and those who live there are excited about the prospect of tourists, and the boost to the economy they'll bring.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nicolle Wallace is joined by Andrew Weissmann, Tim Heaphy, Katty Kay, Anne Applebaum, Rick Stengel, Frank Figliuzzi, Nancy Gertner, Michael Eric Dyson, John Heilemann, Simon Rosenberg, and Cornell Belcher. 

First you get the money, then you get the power. But FIRST first you get the law students. This week we're exploring the tentacles of the Federalist Society, and how a so-called debate club pulls levers across government, the legal profession, and academia, to achieve its conservative ideological goals.Hear more from this episode's contributors:Vanessa A. Bee is the author of HOME BOUND: An Uprooted Daughter's Reflections on Belonging (Astra Publishing, 2022).Andrea Bernstein's reporting with ProPublica and WNYC, about Leonard Leo, is available on On The Media's "We Don't Talk about Leonard" series.Nancy Gertner is the author of In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate (Beacon Press, 2011).Jon Hanson is the director of Harvard Law School's Systemic Justice Project, a problem-centric alternative to the traditional legal-educational mode.Amanda Hollis-Brusky is the author of Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution (Oxford University Press, 2019).If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. This episode was fact-checked by Arielle Swedback. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court rejected special counsel Jack Smith's request to have the high court decide whether former President Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while he was in the White House. The question of Trump's immunity must be decided before the trial, which is scheduled for March 4th and could be delayed. The issue will first go before an appeals court early next month. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner tells AC360 why she thinks the Supreme Court may have rejected the special counsel's request. Plus, federal authorities are apprehending record levels of migrants at the U.S. southern border each day as officials deal with a lack of capacity and resources. CNN Senior Latin American Affairs Editor Rafael Romo joins AC360 from Eagle Pass, Texas for an update on a situation that top immigration officials are calling a “serious challenge.”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guests: Rep. Robert Garcia, Temidayo Aganga-Williams, Nancy Gertner, Ben Rhodes, Tim MillerWhat does it take to get kicked out of Congress? Tonight: on the eve of an expulsion vote, the Santos mess gets messier. And what we just learned about the FBI seizure of another Congressman's phone. Then, hours after his latest attack, Donald Trump is gagged again in New York. 

Guests: Noga Tarnopolsky, David Remnick, Ayman Mohyeldin, David Roberts, Nancy Gertner, Betsey StevensonTonight: the delicate negotiations still ongoing in Israel—and what it will take to get some of the Hamas hostages home. Then: the latest on the gag order against the ex-president as authoritarianism keeps spreading beyond Trump. Plus, why inflation just ain't what it used to be.

Former President Trump has asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself from the federal 2020 election subversion case. In a new court filing, Trump pointed to Chutkan's previous comments made in cases involving January 6 rioters. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner tells Anderson Cooper the former president's request is “not surprising.” Plus, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who testified before the grand jury in the Georgia investigation, joins AC360 to discuss whether he supports the longshot legal strategy of using the Fourteenth Amendment to bar the former president from the 2024 ballot. In recent weeks, a growing number of liberal and conservative legal scholars have embraced the idea. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Former U.S. federal judge Nancy Gertner was appointed to the bench of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton in 1994, retiring in 2011 to teach at Harvard Law School, and is working on a book featuring interviews with people she imprisoned. Gertner is in New Zealand for the Criminal Bar Association conference, discussing, among other things, Donald Trump's chances of being re-elected, should he be convicted.

Guests: Tim Miller, Tara Setmayer, Nancy Gertner, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Dave ZirninDOJ seeks a protective order on Trump as the frontrunner's party demands a loyalty pledge even for convicted felons. Then, the growing calls for cameras at the trial of Donald Trump. Plus, the remarkable collapse of a MAGA attack on Joe Biden. And is the U.S. government going to prevent the Saudi purchase of American golf? New details on two new investigations.

Former President Trump has been indicted for a second time. The seven counts against him include conspiracy to obstruct and willful retention of documents and false statements. Listeners called and texted in to share their reactions. We have Adrianna Boulin from the newly-formed Boston Pride For The People & Chastity Bowick former executive director of the Transgender Emergency Fund. Rick Steves is in town for his show with the Pops, he'll make an appearance. Sue O'Connell is part of the Speak Now original series where staff members of NBC Boston Stations and Telemundo share stories of LGBTQ+ pride. She'll also touch on The Ultimatum's new queer season. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner will take a deep dive into news of Trump's indictment. Mary Gauthier joins for Live Music Friday ahead of a show at Club Passim.

The 2023 Scripps spelling bee crowned it's winner, Dev Shah, last night. So we held our own spelling bee and challenged the brave callers. Comedian and podcaster Jamie Loftus has written her first book called Raw Dog, a comprehensive exploration of the beloved hot dog. She joined to discuss. Sue O'Connell talked Pride Month in Boston, as well 83-year-old Al Pacino becoming a father. Buster the Bear might've made an appearance in her segment as well. Corby Kummer discussed food stamp adjustments in the debt ceiling deal, recent controversies surrounding a dairy ad featuring Aubrey Plaza and an exciting offer from a New Zealand pizza company for its customers. Nancy Gertner joined the conversation to discuss the latest news from the nation's highest court. The Kendall Square Orchestra's annual Symphony for Science, taking place this weekend, performed for Live Music Friday. We ended the show by talking about all things hot dogs.

Summer is around the corner and school's about to be out. So should older kids be obligated to work or go to summer camp? We opened the lines to hear from listeners. Carolyn Beeler, a journalist from The World , shares details about their journalism initiative called The Big Fix, which aims to explore global solutions for addressing climate change. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner delves into the possibility of E Jean Carroll suing Trump for the third time, specifically regarding his comments following the sexual assault civil trial. She also discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the "independent state legislature" theory that the Supreme Court of the United States may or may not be grappling with in time for the 2024 election. Corby Kummer, a food policy analyst, highlights the inspiring efforts of individuals in Arizona who have successfully combated historic drought by transforming lawns into forest gardens and cultivating urban farms in food deserts. Kummer also touches upon Michelle Obama's new venture, PLEZi Nutrition company. The Revs engage in a conversation about the increasing trend of Americans praying in their cars rather than traditional places of worship. Additionally, they discuss what Ron DeSantis' lack of "God-talk" signifies for Republican politics on a broader scale. Charlie Sennott, an analyst from GBH News, provides a roundup of various global news topics, including the ongoing conflicts in Sudan, Ukrainian President Zelensky's meeting with the Pope in Italy, the recent elections in Turkey, and the Israel-Gaza conflict. We closed to show by asking listeners about their snacking rituals. According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly half of Americans are eating three or more snacks a day. We wanted to know how our listeners related.

Three famous media figures have been let go from their networks all falling from grace over how they treated, and talked about, women at their companies. Is the me-too movement still alive? We opened the lines to hear from listeners. Chuck Todd on the latest political headlines. Andrea Cabral weighs in on the E. Jean Carrol trial, also an SJC ruling on faulty breathalyzer tests, and more. Andy Ihnatko talks AI in music (fake Drake) and politics (Republicans), plus Apple's new classical music streaming app, and the various state legislators trying to crack down on kids' social media use. Christopher Muther recounts his trip to Medellin, talks about the best tasting drinks to order on a plane, that new big red building at Logan Airport and fly fishing in Arlington, Vermont. Nancy Gertner on her recent op-ed for the Globe about Trump-era judges… she'll also cover ethics on the Supreme Court, their ruling on mifepristone, and the E. Jean Carroll trial. We ended the show by asking listeners what a meaningful protest looks like.

Guests: Justin Pearson, Melissa Murray, Irin Carmon, Nancy Gertner, Joshua KaplanA federal judge in Amarillo, Texas orders medical abortion pills off of shelves, across the country in seven days. Tonight: Melissa Murray, Irin Carmon, and Nancy Gertner on the latest wild assault on reproductive rights. Then, Republicans against democracy in Nashville: Justin Peterson on his historic expulsion—and the anti-democratic Republican moment in Tennessee and beyond. And private jets, super yachts and the everyman facade of a Supreme Court Justice. Clarence Thomas responds to explosive reporting on the secret gifts he's been receiving from a Republican megadonor.  

Today on Boston Public Radio: The world is watching Tennessee after 2 young black democratic lawmakers were expelled for speaking out of turn at a gun safety protest. Tennessee republicans didn't expel the 3rd white democratic lawmaker who was participated in the same protest. We opened the lines for listeners to weigh in. Boston Globe's Shirley Leung will talk about the state's clawback of unemployment benefits after a 3 year pause, the state gambling commission rejecting bets on the marathon, and more. Nancy Gertner is back via Zoom, we'll talk with her about Clarence Thomas privately accepting (very) expensive gifts from one GOP donor. She'll also talk about the Trump charges, and what the Wisconsin Supreme Court vote mean for Democrats in post-Dobbs America. J. Ivy is a Grammy-winning poet and the man who gave John Legend his name. He's performing at the Boston City Winery, he'll join via Zoom. Sue O'Connell will discuss Marty Walsh siding with the NFL in a dispute over players wearing pride jerseys, plus the Twitter labelling NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media' (which is untrue), the latest pro-gun legislation out of Florida and more. Sophia Chen, Jane Park & Felice Ling are all a part of a late-night event “Asian Glow” at the Pao Arts Center in Chinatown. It's all about creating space for Asian creatives & performers, we'll hear some music from singer/songwriter Jane Park and magic from Felice Ling. We wrapped up the show America's favorite Easter-time debate: peeps. We asked listeners for their thoughts while a producer attempted to buy some peeps but they were sold out in various stores.

Today former President Donald Trump was arraigned in Manhattan. No video cameras were allowed in the courtroom. We asked listeners whether they thought the public should be able to view the proceedings. NBC Sports Boston's Trenni Casey gave a rundown of the NCAA basketball title games, plus insights on the new Major League Baseball rules. ACLU of Massachusetts executive director Carol Rose discussed the Trump arraignment and a SCOTUS immigration case that centers on free speech. Martin Smith of Frontline discussed the new three-part series titled "America and the Taliban". Part one airs tonight on PBS. Lee Pelton, president and CEO of the Boston Foundation discussed the upcoming report that examines Black wealth in Boston. As Trump entered the courthouse, we broadcasted live to hear from Michael Curry, former federal judge Nancy Gertner and Ron Sullivan, the faculty director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute and the Harvard Trial Advocacy Workshop.

Jared Bowen filled in for Jim Braude at the Boston Public Library. Turns out Jim was too busy taking photos of Trump supporters outside of Mar-A-Lago. Last night the news broke about Trump's indictment by a Manhattan grand jury. We started the show by hearing from former federal judge Nancy Gertner with her reactions and legal analysis. Then we opened the phone lines to hear from listeners. What were their reactions to the news, and what does the indictment mean for next year's presidential election? Sue O'Connell discussed the transphobia surrounding the Tennessee mass shooting. On the lighter side, she celebrated the one-year anniversary of Wordle, and ancient artifacts that may or may not be sex toys. Corby Kummer joined to discuss the James Beard Award nominees, a meatball made from mammoth DNA and the state of food insecurity in Massachusetts. Journalist Andrea Bernstein from WNYC and co-host of the Peabody winning podcast Trump, Inc. joined to discuss Trump's indictment. Will Dailey, a local singer/songwriter, joined for Live Music Friday. He performed two songs and spoke to Margery and Jared about his new podcast called Sound of Our Town.

We started the show by asking listeners about the future of public beaches. Are private landowners buying up coastline and how can towns protect public beach access?  Chuck Todd gave us the latest out of Washington, including what's going on with the potential Trump indictment. Andrea Cabral discussed local law & order headlines. This week it's the anti-vax former cop who has been following Mayor Wu around in a car. There was also the story of worker exploitation by the owner of Stash's Pizza, some MIT students who rescued a stolen dog and the Trump supporters who are likening his arrest to the crucifixion of Christ. Marcela Garcia weighed in on some of her latest pieces. She talked TikTok bans, teen mental health and Haitian migrants in need of local sponsors. Nancy Gertner brought her judicial background to the Trump indictment story. She also talked about a free speech case involving Jack Daniels and a parody chew-toy, plus the latest in the Fox v. Dominion suit. NPR television reviewer Eric Deggans discussed Succession's return, Yellowjackets, Lucky Hank, Ted Lasso season 3 and what he makes of the rotating cast of Daily Show hosts. We closed out the show to get listeners feedback on the World Happiness Report. The U.S. ranked 15th. Do listeners agree with this ranking? How do they think the U.S. could bump up happiness?

Today on Boston Public Radio, live from the Boston Public Library: We opened the phone lines to hear from listeners about the future of automation and what it means for their careers and livelihoods. Nancy Gertner gave us the rundown on the latest legal headlines, including the Supreme Court's opinion on student loans, and a case on whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutional. Judge Gertner also reflected on a recent Texas judge's ruling on abortion pills. Gov. Maura Healey joined live from the Boston Public Library for “Ask the Governor.” She answered questions on her new tax plan & budget, housing, Massachusetts State Police reform, transparency, the new Black Empowerment Council, plus climate & MBTA dysfunction. Alison King & Shira Stoll from NBC News talked about their series “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of New Hampshire.” President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden recently dined at The Red Hen in DC and ordered the same meal. Is this weird to order the exact same meal at a restaurant as your dining partner? We had listeners weigh in.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We started the show with listener reactions to the U.S. military shooting down multiple unidentified objects in North American airspace. Michael Curry discussed a new study that finds childbirth is deadlier for Black families even when they're wealthy; and a 15-year-old in Massachusetts staying in a hospital for 40 days because DCF couldn't place him. Curry is President and CEO of the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers. He's also a Member of the National NAACP Board of Directors, where he chairs the board's Advocacy & Policy Committee. Charlie Sennott discussed the string of unidentified objects shot down in US airspace; and the latest with the earthquake on the border of Turkey and Syria. Sennott is the founder and editor-in-chief of The GroundTruth Project. Retired judge Nancy Gertner discusses the Supreme Court weighing an ethics code; and former vice president Mike Pence getting subpoenaed related to the events on January 6, 2021. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Reverends Irene Monroe and Emmett Price discussed the Super Bowl, which made history for both quarterbacks being Black. Reverend Irene Monroe is a syndicated religion columnist and the Boston voice for Detour's African American Heritage Trail. Emmett G. Price III is founding pastor of Community of Love Christian Fellowship in Allston, the Inaugural Dean of Africana Studies at Berklee College of Music. Together they host the All Rev'd Up podcast. We closed the show with listener comments on whether restaurants should ban children, as one New Jersey establishment has just done.

Today on Boston Public Radio: Sen. Elizabeth Warren spoke about a looming political battle in Congress over whether to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, the state of child care in the Commonwealth, and what she made of the recent Ticketmaster antitrust Congressional hearing. We opened phone and text lines to talk with listeners about their experiences with child care in Massachusetts. Hon. Nancy Gertner discussed the Memphis police killing of Tyre Nichols, reports of discord among the Supreme Court justices, and questions of whether there ought to be more oversight of the Judicial Branch. Callie Crossley offered her own perspective on the killing of Nichols, as well as racist remarks made about former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao by former President Donald Trump, and Springfield-native Ruth Carter getting an Oscar nod for her constume design work on “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” Sue O'Connell offered her perspective on the latest conversy with Rep. George Santos, and the difference between dressing in drag and being a formal “drag queen.” She also spoke on growing transphobia in the U.K., and why she thinks a recent M&M's re-brand is yet another marketing ploy. O'Connell is co-publisher of Bay Windows and South End News and contributor to Current, on NBC L-X and NECN. Sue O'Connell on BPR | Jan. 27, 2023 Victoria Kichuk is the founder and owner of Cocoa Beantown, a Boston-based chocolate tour and tasting company. She joined for a tasting of some high-quality chocolate brands based in Massachusetts. We closed out the show with listeners, getting your thoughts on bugs & and bug-eating.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by asking listeners whether they're optimistic or pessimistic for the year to come. Trenni Casey updated us on the status of Buffalo Bills player Damar Hamlin, who collapsed mid-game on Monday under cardiac arrest. She also shared her thoughts on broader safety concerns in the world of sports, from lacrosse to hockey. Casey is an anchor and reporter with NBC Sports Boston, and a BPR contributor. Juliette Kayyem weighed in on a recent attack in New York, where a man from Maine attacked police officers in Times Square with a machete. She also dissected Republican Rep. George Santos' various lies, and shared how a potential re-opening of a criminal investigation into his past by Brazilian officials could complicate his time in Congress. Kayyem is former assistant secretary for homeland security under President Barack Obama, and the faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Gina McCarthy discussed the future of climate action in the U.S., and concerns over the Earth's dwindling resources in the midst of climate change. McCarthy served as the first ever White House national climate advisor, serving President Joe Biden, the EPA administrator under President Obama and is co-chair of Governor-elect Maura Healey's climate change transition policy committee. Nancy Gertner shared her thoughts on the final Jan. 6 committee hearing. Gertner is a retired federal judge, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and a BPR regular. Corby Kummer talked about the rise of drive-throughs, ghost kitchens, and delivery apps over the course of the pandemic, as well as The Cheesecake Factory's enduring legacy. Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. We ended the show by talking with listeners about America's fascination with The Cheesecake Factory.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We opened our show with a call-in segment, asking listeners about their thoughts regarding the recent spike in COVID-19, flu, and RSV cases, and if they are choosing to mask again. Nancy Gertner discussed the latest news coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court and former President Donald Trump's legal woes. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Trenni Casey joined the show to talk about the sudden death of American journalist Grant Wahl in Qatar, and the return of Brittney Griner from Russia. Casey is a sports anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu joined us for this month's edition of “Ask the Mayor.” She fielded questions from listeners at home and members of the audience at the Boston Public Library. Wu has been the mayor of Boston since her election in 2021. Comedian Chris Fleming joined the show ahead of his performance at the Wilbur on Dec. 17. We closed the show with Jim and Jared's thoughts regarding house guests, both how they deal with them and sharing their own stories of being guests.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by talking with listeners about the controversies surrounding this year's World Cup. Trenni Casey shared her thoughts on the process behind FIFA picking World Cup host countries. Casey is an anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. Nancy Gertner discussed allegations against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over leaking Court decisions. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Keith Lockhart previewed the Boston Holiday Pops' upcoming season. Lockhart is a conductor for the Boston Pops. Marcela Garcia talked about the push for Mass. lawmakers to make in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants who are state residents a priority. Garcia is a columnist for the Boston Globe, she also serves on the editorial board. John King updated us on the latest political headlines, focusing on Kari Lake suing Maricopa County officials in Arizona after her gubernatorial election loss. King is a CNN Chief National Correspondent, and the host of “Inside Politics.” We ended the show by talking with listeners about holiday office parties.

Guests: Rick Hasen, Nancy Gertner, Sarah Blaskey, Harry Litman20 days from November 8th: President Biden releases the oil. Tonight: why the cost of gasoline could decide the fate of American democracy. Then, why a federal court is calling John Eastman emails potential evidence of "a conspiracy to defraud the United States." And today's Trump deposition in a defamation lawsuit stemming from rape allegations. Then, the horrifying reality of what has become a Republican talking point on abortion. And new depths of despair and deception from new reporting on the DeSantis migrant stunt.  

The Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Trump's request that it intervene in his legal battle and allow the special master to review the classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago. The DOJ called the records “extraordinarily sensitive” and warned if they were reviewed it could “jeopardize national security.” Former federal judge Nancy Gertner tells Anderson Cooper whether she thinks the DOJ will win this fight. Plus, Republican Sens. Rick Scott and Tom Cotton hit the campaign trail for Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker. Walker's campaign has been rocked by allegations the former football star, who supports a national abortion ban without exception, asked an ex-girlfriend to have the procedure twice and paid for it on the occasion she did. Washington Post reporter Annie Linskey joins AC360 to discuss new details surrounding the alleged abortion.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Today on Boston Public Radio: We started the show by hearing our listener's reactions to the news that NASA had successfully launched a satellite into an asteroid to test its ability to redirect the paths of objects in space. Trenni Casey discussed how Boston Celtics coach Ime Udoka's year-long suspension for having an inappropriate relationship with a female staff member impacted the official launch of the C's season. Casey also discussed how replacement coach Joe Mazzulla's relative inexperience could affect the team's prospects. Trenni is an anchor and reporter with NBC Sports Boston, and a Boston Public Radio contributor. Nancy Gertner discussed the upcoming Jan. 6 insurrection hearing scheduled to take place on Wednesday, Sept. 27, which was subsequently postponed due to the impending Hurricane Ian. Gertner also examined the six legal cases former President Donald Trump is facing and whether or not he could actually be criminally prosecuted. Nancy Gertner is a retired federal judge in Massachusetts and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Jared Bowen recounted his visit to the grand opening of the MIT Museum and whether art made with artificial intelligence is a toy or a weapon — or even art at all. He also covered the latest production of “La Bohéme,” which is playing at Boston Lyrical Opera. Jared Bowen is GBH's Executive Arts Editor and host of the TV series Open Studio, airing Friday nights on GBH 2. Corby Kummer discussed New York City's delayed attempts to ban foie gras; Katz and other “old-school delis” having their moment in the spotlight; and California's farm labor bill. Corby Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. John King discussed how polling is still fluid ahead of the upcoming midterms, creating a hazy picture for who will control Congress come January. John King is CNN's chief National Correspondent and anchor of Inside Politics.

Guests: Ben Collins, Fernand Amandi, Nancy Gertner, Ken Burns, Lynn NovickThe disgraced ex-president of the United States, embraces his new role as leader of the delusional and dangerous QAnon cult. Then, why the supposed alternative to Trump is turning into a real problem for Republicans. Plus, the latest on the special master investigating Trump's stash of secret documents. And Ken Burns on why this moment is one of the most difficult in the history of America. 

Guests: David Miliband, Molly Hunter, Michael Beschloss, Katty Kay, Nancy Gertner, The longest reigning monarch in British history is dead at age 96. Tonight - former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on the global impact of Queen Elizabeth II, Katty Kay on a nation in mourning, and Michael Beschloss on the historic legacy of a 70 year reign. Then, new revelations in the Mar-a-Lago search as the Justice Department cites national security risks in appealing the special master ruling. Plus, Steve Bannon in handcuffs inside a New York courthouse as he surrenders to justice and we get our first look at his charges. 

A federal judge approved former President Trump's request to appoint a special master to review all the evidence the FBI seized last month from his Mar-a-Lago resort. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner walks AC360 through what she thinks the process and timing of appointing a special master will look like. Plus, CNN National Correspondent Gary Tuchman gives AC360 an update on the search for Liza Fletcher, the 34-year-old mother of two who was last seen jogging in Memphis, Tennessee Friday morning. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Guests: Andrew Weissmann, Steve Kornacki, Nancy Gertner, Amy GardnerA five alarm fire at the National Archives over Donald Trump's failure to return top secret documents. Tonight: The newly released letter to the ex-president—and how each revelation keeps making things look worse for Trump. Then, why a Trump appointed judge is scoffing at his attempt to slow down the investigation. And if it's election night, then Steve Kornacki is here for all the results from New York, Florida and beyond.  

Former President Trump's legal team asked a federal judge to appoint a “special master”—a third party attorney— to go through evidence that was found in the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago and make sure any of his private documents are returned. The Justice Department says the search warrant was properly authorized and they believe the evidence it collected at Mar-a-Lago will support its criminal investigation into the mishandling of federal records. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner tells Anderson Cooper how unusual a request for a special master is, especially when two weeks have gone by. Plus, drought-parched Dallas got a summer's worth of rain in just one day forcing dozens to be rescued. CNN Senior National Correspondent Ed Lavandera gives AC360 an update from Texas.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

A judge unsealed several court documents related to the FBI's search of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort and set in motion the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the affidavit. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner joins AC360 to discuss the judge's decision and says it's “very surprising.” Plus, the former President and his allies have claimed there was a “standing order” to declassify documents he took from the Oval Office to the White House residence but CNN spoke to 18 former Trump administration officials who said they never heard of that policy. One senior administration official called it “bullsh*t.” Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton was one of the 18 officials CNN spoke with. He explains to Anderson Cooper if the “standing order” existed, it'd make “no sense whatsoever.” To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

CNN has learned the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago came after authorities believe that the former President or his team failed to return all the documents and other materials that were government property. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner reviewed search warrants as part of her duties while on the federal bench. She walks Anderson Cooper through the standard that needs to be met in order to sign off on a search warrant like this one. Plus, over the weekend the Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act, a $750 billion health care, tax and climate bill. The Democrat-controlled House is expected to pass the legislation on Friday then it'll be sent to President Biden's desk to be signed into law. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer joins AC360 to discuss which parts of the bill Americans will notice most.Airdate: August 9, 2022Guests: Elliot Williams, Sen. Chuck Schumer.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner and class action lawyer Reuben Guttman discuss the impact of Twombly and Iqbal, two SCOTUS decisions that precipitated critical changes in pleading, class certification, and expert standards that have affected a complaint's capacity for making it past the motion-to-dismiss stage. In this wide-ranging interview, they talk about the challenges these decisions have on both judges and practitioners and how the landmark case of Brown v. Board might fare under post-Twiqbal standards. Topics4:02    Twombly/Iqbal's impact on pleading standards7:17    Why process and procedure matter  10:16  Changes pleading standards12:43  Changes in class certifications14:11  Rise of multidistrict litigation16:20  Changes in expert standards, both criminal and civil21:47  Experts in the civil rights arena25:40  Applying today's pleading and class certification standards to Brown v. Board 29:30  Rules that affect access to justice33:04  The benefit of a losing Supreme Court case36:04  Getting around these obstacles44:11  Judges, lawyers, and the legacy of discrimination cases48:35  Signoff questionQuote“I know from having been a criminal defense lawyer and civil rights lawyer and a judge, and now sort of a litigator as well, that what I may find ‘plausible' may be not what a jury finds ‘plausible.' That plausibility is, in fact, a contextual analysis—in context. And when I sat on the bench there were numbers of times, in fact, that my law clerk would say to me, ‘Judge, you can get rid of this case. You can get rid of this case. The allegations are not plausible.' And I would turn to the law clerk and say, ‘To whom? To you? To me? To some of my male colleagues on the bench?' So essentially, plausibility enabled the judges, who are not the most diverse group in the world, to make their own decisions about whether a case should proceed.” Judge Nancy GertnerResourcesJudge Nancy Gertner (bio)  Reuben Guttman (bio)Representative Opinions of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (book) From Conley to Twombly to Iqbal (article)  Brown v. Board of Education complaint (PDF) Pretrial Advocacy (book) 

We discuss the impacts of the Jan. 6th hearings and what it means for the Commonwealth with former Massachusetts Congressman Michael Capuano and retired federal judge Nancy Gertner.

Last October, we released an episode entitled, “The Case for Supreme Court Reform.” Since then, the urgency to reform our highest court has only intensified, as public trust in the Court continues to decline and the Court's legitimacy along with it. This week, Jeanne Hruska speaks with Kermit Roosevelt from the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School about the "how to" of Supreme Court reform. They dive into the mechanics of establishing term limits for justices and expanding the Court. They also discuss the difference between the symptoms and the cause of the Court's legitimacy crisis.   Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Jeanne Hruska, ACS Sr Advisor for Communications and Strategy Guest: Kermit Roosevelt, David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Link: "Coming to Terms with Term Limits: Fixing the Downward Spiral of Supreme Court Appointments," by Kermit Roosevelt III and Ruth-Helen Vassilas Link: "I Spent 7 Months Studying Supreme Court Reform. We Need to Pack the Court Now," by Kermit Roosevelt III Link: "The Supreme Court isn't well. The only hope for a cure is more justices," by Nancy Gertner and Laurence H. Tribe Link: "Majority Say Let Roe Stand; Scotus Approval Rating Drops," Monmouth University Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2022.

Legal analyst Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge, breaks down what the possible end of Roe v. Wade might mean for Massachusetts.

Plus, legal analyst Nancy Gertner discusses the local ramifications of the leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion that threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Kristina is a national trial lawyer who represents sick people against the companies that made them sick.  She founded Just Well Law to help clients recover financially so that they can rebuild their health and their lives.  Kristina is used to high profile, high stakes litigation. At a national trial firm, she represented plaintiffs in bet-the-company cases like Trilogy against SAP, the Medical University of South Carolina against AstraZeneca, Ericsson against Samsung, and TiVo against Comcast.  These cases resulted in over $1 billion in revenue for their clients.  For TiVo, she led back-to-back trial teams of more than 20 lawyers to victories before the International Trade Commission, ultimately leading to nine-figure royalties. She was honored by her peers as a Texas Rising Star from 2015-2019. As an Assistant US Attorney, Kristina then represented the United States in civil actions, including catastrophic personal injury. She defended Army doctors accused of medical malpractice, USPS drivers after catastrophic accidents, the Air Force in premises liability, and the VA and FAA in employment disputes.  After tragedy hit her own family, she returned to the plaintiffs' side and founded Just Well Law to help other families in crisis.  She built the personal injury firm she couldn't find for her own family.  Health and wellness require financial resources, and Kristina is relentless in pursuing the maximum recovery for her clients because she has been there too.  ​ Kristina attended Princeton University and then Yale Law School. Committed to using the law as a tool of empowerment, she has helped people living with HIV/AIDS in Uganda find financial freedom, founded the domestic violence clinic at Yale Law School, and helped the Ministry of Justice of Liberia launch a sex crimes prosecution unit with the Carter Center.  She served as a federal clerk for Nancy Gertner in the District of Massachusetts. And she teaches trial lawyers as an instructor for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson would be the first former public defender on a bench full of former prosecutors and corporate lawyers. What difference would that make on the highest court in the land? Nancy Gertner and Benjamin Barton join Meghna Chakrabarti.

The Commission on Supreme Court expansion has issued its report, neither recommending nor rejecting an increased number of justices. Should liberals who are upset with the court's composition seek the appointment of more justices for "balance?" Former federal judges David Levi, Thomas Griffith, and Nancy Gertner weigh in. Legal scholars Ed Whelan and Jonathan Turley also contribute.

Big news from the January 6th committee on the man at the heart of Donald Trump's coup attempt in the Justice Department. Plus, how federal judges are stepping up and leading the way on the prosecution of January 6th investigation. Then, the White House addresses the shortage of everything. And the Washington Football Team cheerleaders still seeking justice in the wake of Jon Gruden's firing. Guests: Barbara McQuade, Harry Litman, Betsy Woodruff Swan, Zoe Tillman, Nancy Gertner, Derek Thompson,  Melanie Coburn 

Plus, the Supreme Court is back in session, so we break down the docket with our legal expert, retired federal judge Nancy Gertner. And, we speak to State Senator Diana DiZoglio and Carrie LaPierre, a civics teacher at North Andover Middle School, about their quest to clear the name of a woman convicted of being a witch in 1693.

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner has been struggling with some legal demons herself, and she wound up turning to people she'd sentenced to help her sort them out.

We're joined by Nancy Gertner, retired federal judge, senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and WBUR Legal Analyst.

Rejecting the authority of the U.S. government to enforce its laws. Local institutions requiring people to get vaccinated if they want to work. We ask retired judge Nancy Gertner, "Can they do that?"

WBUR's Ally Jarmanning brings us the latest on this still developing story. We also break down the legal arguments with Nancy Gertner, retired federal judge, senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and WBUR Legal Analyst.

Legal battles from the city of Boston to the Supreme Court could affect our future here in the Commonwealth. We'll get caught up on what's happening with retired federal judge and WBUR legal analyst Nancy Gertner.

A first-of-its-kind study of Suffolk County criminal cases found that declining to prosecute some low-level offenses can actually lead to less crime. We discuss the results with Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins. We also break down the study's findings with WBUR's Ally Jarmanning, and hear legal analysis from Nancy Gertner, retired federal judge and WBUR Legal Analyst.

What kind of Massachusetts podcasters would we be if we did not cover the case Danny LaPlante? Tune in to find out how one of Massachusetts' most heinous crimes took place right in our backyard. Sources: Al Odhayani, Abdulaziz, et al. “Behavioural Consequences of Child Abuse.” Canadian Family Physician Medecin De Famille Canadien, College of Family Physicians of Canada, Aug. 2013. Campbell, Jerome. “Mass. High Court Rejects Early Parole Petition For Man Convicted Of Murder In 1987.” WBUR News, WBUR, 6 June 2019. CBS Boston. “Triple Murderer Daniel LaPlante Must Wait 15 More Years Before Chance At Parole.” CBS Boston, CBS Boston, 23 Mar. 2017. “COMMONWEALTH vs. DANIEL J. LAPLANTE.” LAPLANTE, COMMONWEALTH vs., 416 Mass. 433. “Daniel LaPlante.” Joe Turner, 18 Oct. 2020, www.joeturnerbooks.com/post/daniel-laplante. NANCY GERTNER, United States District Judge. “Laplante v. Commonwealth of Mass. Dept. of Corr.” Legal Research Tools from Casetext, 31 Jan. 2003. Rovner, Josh, and Amy Fettig. “Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview.” The Sentencing Project, 27 Feb. 2020. www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mass-hysteria-pod/support

Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her work in the 1970s proved that the Constitution prohibits gender discrimination and that equality between the sexes ought to be an affirmative American right. We talk with women in law today about how Ginsburg changed the nation. Nancy Gertner, Kathleen Peratis, Barbara McQuade and Laura Brill join Meghna Chakrabarti.

We're joined by WBUR senior news correspondent Kimberly Atkins and WBUR legal analyst Nancy Gertner.

Al concludes that Trump is guilty, yes,guilty!, of high crimes and misdemeanors and so is AG Bill Barr after discussing facts with Harvard Law Professor Nancy Gertner and Max Bergman, director of the Moscow Project. They make the case that assuming Trump will be acquitted in the Senate is a mistake. Al concludes that "When you assume, you 'Make an Ass out of Uma Thurman.'" Uma discusses Pulp Fiction.

An in-depth, but somewhat snarky, look at the Trump administration’s success in packing the courts with right-wing, Federalist Society judges. Gertner, a Harvard Law professor, and Toobin, CNN chief legal analyst, discuss some of the most cynical, activist decisions by the Roberts Court. Al calls Justice Scalia’s dissent in marriage equality, “Very gay.”

In this trailer episode to The Al Franken Podcast, Al sits down with Amazon's Alexa (Siri had other commitments) to review highlights of the upcoming episodes featuring:Maria Theresa Kumar, president and CEO of Voto Latino,Nancy Gertner, Harvard Law School professor and former U.S federal judge,Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for CNN and The New Yorker,Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short and Moneyball,Andy Slavitt, former Acting Administrator of Medicare and Medicaid,Dana Carvey, actor, comedian, and Saturday Night Live alum, andDavid Frum, staff writer at The Atlantic and former speechwriter for George W. Bush.

Today on the Public Morality we speak with Retired Judge Nancy Gertner and CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos about the recent controversial trial of Michelle Carter. And following that discussion, Nigel Alston joins us to speak about the upcoming National Black Theater Festival here in Winston Salem North Carolina.

Julius Caesar is Shakespeare’s classic depiction of the abuse of power, political assassination and intrigue – a plot that would rival any episode of House of Cards or Scandal. The play offers a valuable and timeless springboard for a discussion of the use of executive power in 21st century America – and its future under a Clinton or Trump presidency. -- The Shakespeare & the Law series features a staged reading of the abridged play performed by prominent judges, attorneys, journalists, political strategists and scholars, followed by a panel discussion that explores the implications of the work in the era of Obama, Clinton and Trump. Presented in partnership with the Federalist Society, McCarter & English LLP, and Foley Hoag LLP. -- This event took place at the Wimberly Theatre at the Boston Center of the Arts in Boston, MA on September 28, 2016. -- Participants include: David J. Barron, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals; Jennifer C. Braceras, Attorney and Editor of NewBostonPost; Martha Coakley, Former Attorney General of Massachusetts; Nancy Gertner, Retired Judge, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Michael S. Greco, Partner at K&L Gates and past present of the American Bar Association; Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed Columnist for The Boston Globe; Daniel J. Kelly, Chairman of the Boston Lawyers Division of the Federalist Society and a partner at McCarter & English; George A. O’Toole, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of the Practice Groups of the Federalist Society; Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts; F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; Douglas P. Woodlock, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; and Rya W. Zobel, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts.

. The post Controversies on Campus with Nancy Gertner & John McAdams appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Long before Nancy Gertner became a federal judge she had made a name for herself defending a lesbian revolutionary who stood accused of killing a police officer. She then became known for her work on abortion and sex discrimination cases. Gertner talks about her unusual career with UC Hastings law professor Lisa Faigman. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 23283]

Long before Nancy Gertner became a federal judge she had made a name for herself defending a lesbian revolutionary who stood accused of killing a police officer. She then became known for her work on abortion and sex discrimination cases. Gertner talks about her unusual career with UC Hastings law professor Lisa Faigman. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 23283]