Podcast appearances and mentions of pam karlan

"The Declaration meets the machine age" In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell frames a question the Founders never confronted: if the Declaration grounds rights in human nature, what happens when machines can generate persuasive, human-like language at scale? Constitutional scholar Alexander Tsesis argues that the Declaration's conception of rights is inherently human-centered—rooted in consciousness, moral agency, intentionality, and the capacity to participate in a constitutional republic—so AI systems are not and should not become First Amendment rights-holders. He warns that treating large language models as protected “speakers” would be a major break from the Declaration's principles and could make ordinary democratic regulation—transparency requirements, labeling of synthetic content, safety rules, data practices, and restrictions on deceptive election deepfakes—far harder by forcing courts into strict scrutiny review. Stanford historian Anne Twitty broadens the lens by situating abolitionists' use of the Declaration within wider 19th-century conflicts over speech and constitutional meaning, reminding listeners that rival traditions—including censorship and suppression—also shaped American practice. She also presses a key tension in Tsesis's framework: abolitionists championed not only the right to speak, but the public's right to hear, circulate, and access contested ideas (as seen in the abolitionist postal campaign and opposition to the congressional gag rule). That listener-centered strand, she suggests, could potentially be invoked by scholars arguing for some constitutional shelter for AI-generated communications—an argument Tsesis acknowledges but ultimately resists by emphasizing that the First Amendment's core purpose is protecting human expression and self-government, not machine output. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:[00:00:26] Chapter 1- Framing Question: Do constitutional rights grounded in “human nature” apply to AI? Host Michael McConnell introduces the episode's core dilemma: the Declaration's natural-rights logic underwrites later constitutional protections like free speech—so where does that leave generative AI? [00:01:18] Chapter 2 - Thesis: Why Tsesis says AI can't be a First Amendment rights-holder Alexander Tsesis argues the Declaration and Constitution are human-centered: AI lacks consciousness, moral agency, and political personhood, so extending rights to LLMs would depart from founding principles and hinder regulation. [00:10:08] Chapter 3 - Regulatory Stakes: What happens if courts treat LLM outputs as protected “speech”? Tsesis warns that First Amendment coverage for AI could trigger strict scrutiny and undermine laws on transparency, labeling, safety, data practices, and election deepfakes—citing recent doctrine and cases like Reed v. Town of Gilbert. [00:52:35] Chapter 4 - Historical Challenge: Do abolitionists' “right to hear” arguments support listener-centric AI rights? Historian Anne Twitty complicates the record: abolitionists elevated the Declaration, but censorship traditions were strong; she highlights abolitionist campaigns (postal campaign, gag rule) to argue listener rights might bolster pro-AI speech theories. [01:04:17] Chapter 5 - Tsesis Response: Listener rights matter—but is the First Amendment still speaker-centered? Tsesis agrees the right to receive information is important, yet maintains free speech is fundamentally about protecting human intention and self-expression, not conferring constitutional status on machine outputs. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stanford's Allen Weiner examines how the U.S. war with Iran raises questions about the president's power to wage war and negotiate peace. --- The American war with Iran began with ambitious goals, including preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and potentially bringing about regime change. But the conflict may well be leading to a very different outcome, according to Stanford Law School's Allen Weiner, a scholar of international and human rights law and former State Department lawyer. Just prior to the recent collapse of the tenuous cease fire, Weiner joined podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the conflict is arguably strengthening Iran's most repressive factions while putting economic and diplomatic pressure on the United States. Weiner traces how the conflict grew out of the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, asks whether the new agreement with Iran amounts to a weaker version of that accord, and considers how ceasefires and shifting legal rationales have allowed the administration to sidestep Congress and keep the War Powers clock from running out.  Allen Weiner  >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction  00:02:09 Back to the JCPOA—The 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal  00:04:23 From "worst deal ever" to a weaker one  00:04:51 Two rounds of strikes  00:07:11 Regime change that wasn't  00:08:40 The Strait of Hormuz and the global economy  00:09:49 Emboldened by Venezuela  00:11:33 Israel in, NATO out  00:12:27 The new MOU  00:14:31 Israel left off the page  00:17:38 Free transit, for now  00:19:06 Treaty or political commitment?  00:21:36 The War Powers loophole  00:24:26 Can Congress actually enforce the War Powers Act?  00:28:12 Conclusion  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“Two competing originalist instincts” In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces Randy Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and Faculty Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution alongside Eugene Volokh, the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford), and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus (and Distinguished Research Professor) at UCLA School of Law. Barnett and Volokh share respect for the Declaration's importance but diverge on what that importance does in law. Barnett sees the Declaration as the “ground and foundation of future government,” supplying binding premises about “just powers” and limiting even broad state “police power” claims that risk subverting rights. Volokh counters that the Declaration resembles a political platform and persuasive rhetoric—valuable for context and values, but too general and historically contingent to function as enforceable law without tethering to more specific legal texts. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters [00:00:26] Chapter 1: Framing Question: Is the Declaration “law” if courts can't directly enforce it? Host Michael McConnell opens by contrasting Justice Barrett and Justice Scalia's view—Declaration as ideals, not law—with Randy Barnett's claim that the Declaration functions as foundational law shaping constitutional meaning. [00:01:54] Chapter 2: Setting the Stage: Why Barnett and Volokh, and why this debate now? McConnell introduces Barnett and Volokh, highlighting their originalist and civil-libertarian influence and teeing up the central question: “Is the Declaration our law?” [00:06:11] Chapter 3: Barnett's Case-in-Chief: How did Salmon P. Chase use the Declaration as law in anti-slavery litigation? Barnett argues the Declaration supplied a liberty baseline in 19th-century practice—especially in the Matilda and Van Zandt cases—supporting “clear statement” rules and strict construction against liberty-restricting interpretations. [00:37:38] Chapter 4: Volokh's Challenge: What is the Declaration—and what isn't it? Volokh contends the Declaration is best understood as a political platform/announcement with legal significance as an independence claim, but not as governing law; it can guide interpretation mainly when reinforced by constitutional provisions like the Ninth Amendment. [00:56:04] Chapter 5: Barnett's Rebuttal: Can the Declaration shape doctrine without giving judges a blank check? Barnett responds that “law” is broader than judicially enforceable rules, arguing the Declaration legitimately informs burdens of justification and doctrines (due process meaning, presumptions of liberty vs. constitutionality) while remaining constrained by legal method and natural-rights theory. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

How do you engage effectively across deep disagreement without shutting down the conversation?This week on If/Then, we're sharing an episode from our colleagues at Stanford Legal, the podcast from Stanford Law School that looks at the cases, questions, and conflicts shaping public life.In a world where confidence is rewarded and humility can feel like a liability, Stanford Law professor Robert MacCoun argues for something radical: fewer unwavering opinions, more critical reflection, and a better way to disagree. On Stanford Legal, MacCoun joins co-hosts Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a conversation about how “habits of mind” borrowed from science can help citizens, lawyers, and policymakers think more clearly, listen more carefully, and build better public debate around difficult questions that don't have easy answers.Trained as a social psychologist, MacCoun's work sits at the intersection of law, science, and public policy, with decades of research on decision-making, bias, and the social dynamics that shape how evidence is interpreted. In the episode, he draws on his most recent book, Third Millennium Thinking: Creating Sense in a World of Nonsense, co-authored with Nobel Prize–winning physicist Saul Perlmutter and philosopher John Campbell, to explain why probabilistic thinking, intellectual humility, and what he calls an “opinion diet” are essential tools for modern civic life.Related Content:Robert MacCoun faculty profileThird Millenium ThinkingStanford Legal PodcastChapters:00:00:00 Introduction00:01:23 The course, the book, & what motivated it00:04:06 Habits of mind for better decision-making00:06:20 Probabilistic thinking and intellectual humility00:09:57 An “opinion diet”00:12:16 Reasonable doubt, community, & collective judgment00:14:13 Scientific optimism and the problem of cynicism00:17:31 Why trust in science has eroded00:20:10 Law, science, & the value of procedure00:22:50 Steel-manning the other side00:24:58 Public policy as provisional problem-solving00:30:07 Deliberative democracy and informed public debate00:32:03 ConclusionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This episode reframes the Declaration of Independence as more than soaring ideals about equality and natural rights. Former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar argues the text contains an underappreciated architecture of government: accountability to citizens, managing political conflict across regions, and establishing legitimate authority both domestically and in the international order. The result is a Declaration that reads like a nation-building document designed to make a new state workable after revolution. Responding to Cuéllar, Larry Kramer—former Stanford Law dean, a leading scholar of democratic constitutionalism, and now president of the London School of Economics—adds a grounding historical frame: in 1776, the Declaration was shaped as much by law as by philosophy. Kramer argues the grievances were understood as claims that Britain had violated the colonies' constitutional rights under the British customary constitution, which helps explain why the Declaration's “structural” ideas are often implicit rather than spelled out as a blueprint. Together, Cuéllar and Kramer show how the Declaration operates in two registers: a practical indictment of governmental failure and a foundational text later generations repeatedly reinterpret to justify (or resist) evolving structures of American governance. Their exchange highlights a central tension that persists—between universal promises and the administrative choices that determine how, and for whom, those promises are implemented. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — Framing question: Is the Declaration also a “blueprint for government”? Host Michael McConnell sets up the episode's core premise and introduces guests Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar and Larry Kramer to explore the Declaration's structural dimensions. [00:05:21] Chapter 2 — Cuéllar's thesis: “Text vs. territory” and the Declaration as state-building Cuéllar argues the Declaration is not just a creed; it catalogs governance failures under George III and implies the need for a sovereign that can function at home and abroad. [00:06:04] Chapter 3 — The Freedom Train as a case study in ideals meeting administration (1947–48) Using the racially integrated Freedom Train—and its refusal to stop in segregated cities—Cuéllar spotlights the friction between universal principles and on-the-ground governance. [00:13:07] Chapter 4 — 1890–1950: expansion of the administrative state and contested equality Cuéllar walks through key moments (Du Bois/Niagara Movement, Wilson at Independence Hall, Becker vs. Coolidge, FDR's “Second Bill of Rights,” Ho Chi Minh quoting Jefferson) to show how the Declaration structures recurring fights over equality, borders, and state capacity. [00:28:51] Chapter 5 — Kramer's response: the Declaration's legal-constitutional origins and how texts evolve Kramer argues the Declaration was fundamentally a legal brief grounded in the British customary constitution; its grievances alleged constitutional violations, and later generations repurpose founding texts to frame new disputes. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jeff Fisher discusses a term marked by major rulings across executive power, voting, and civil rights, and what they signal about the Court's trajectory. --- The Supreme Court has wrapped up a consequential term, issuing decisions that could shape executive power, constitutional rights, and the balance between the branches of government for years to come. Rulings on birthright citizenship, independent federal agencies, voting rights, transgender athletes, and Fourth Amendment digital privacy all landed within weeks of one another, offering a rare, wide-angle view of where the Court is headed. In this episode, Professor Jeff Fisher joins Pam Karlan to unpack the term's biggest rulings. Fisher and Karlan co-direct the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and are among the nation's leading experts on Supreme Court litigation and constitutional law, regularly briefing and arguing cases before the Court, giving them a close vantage point on its work.  The discussion traces how the Court is navigating open clashes with President Trump even as it advances long-standing goals of the conservative legal movement, and examines the Court's growing use of history and tradition as a tool of constitutional interpretation. Fisher and Karlan also discuss disagreements among the justices and consider how recent decisions may be emboldening the executive branch. Links: Jeff Fisher  >>> Stanford Profile Opinions of the Court 2025 >>> US Supreme Court Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:57 How to understand this Supreme Court term 00:03:12 A divided Court with rising tensions 00:04:35 Digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment 00:07:35 The Court and the democratic process 00:09:07 Race-conscious law and disparate impact 00:11:09 Election rules, fraud claims, and voting rights 00:14:56 Birthright citizenship and the limits of originalism 00:16:36 History, tradition, and judicial reasoning 00:18:39 Presidential power and independent agencies 00:23:08 The future of the unitary executive theory 00:25:31 Trump, the shadow docket, and executive authority 00:26:08 Immigration, presidential rhetoric, and Court deference 00:28:17 Presidential facts, tweets, and legal reality 00:30:48 Transgender rights and the law of school sports 00:32:23 Why context matters in Supreme Court decisions 00:35:47 Conclusion Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode of The Declaration at 250 discussion spotlights a striking—and often overlooked—line in the Declaration of Independence: when despotism becomes systematic, “it is their right, it is their duty” to throw off such government. Martha Minow probes why the text escalates from permission to obligation, arguing that the “duty” language radically reframes political resistance as a moral demand, not merely a justified option. The episode asks what that duty requires, who must act, and what it means for citizens facing injustice today. Minow traces possible roots of this obligation in natural law and the “law of nations,” social contract ideas, and religious traditions that shaped the founders' moral vocabulary—where obedience to rulers was often understood as conditional on legitimacy and higher law. She also raises the thorny question of who counted as “the people” at the founding (noting exclusions such as enslaved people and many Native persons), and how later movements—from abolition to global self-determination struggles—have invoked the Declaration's language to justify resistance. Jenny Martinez extends the inquiry by emphasizing the Declaration's closing mutual pledge—“our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”—as a concrete act that binds a community and helps explain how the document generates enduring civic obligations, not only to oppose tyranny but to carry forward the promise of equality across generations. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:  [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — The Declaration's “duty” to resist tyranny (Series setup) Michael McConnell frames the episode around the Declaration's claim of a duty—not just a right—to throw off despotism. [00:03:31] Chapter 2 — Minow's close read: why “duty” changes everything Martha Minow zeroes in on the fourth sentence and explains why duty is not synonymous with right. [00:05:43] Chapter 3 — Where the duty might come from: Locke, social contract, religion Minow traces intellectual and religious sources, including Locke and Samuel Langdon's 1775 sermon after Lexington and Concord. [00:08:56] Chapter 4 — Who is “the people,” and who is duty owed to? Minow questions who was included/excluded, then connects duty to universal law, human rights, and global self-determination movements. [00:26:41] Chapter 5 — Martinez: duties, limits on revolution, and the “mutual pledge” Jenny Martinez contrasts civic duty traditions and argues the Declaration's lasting obligation is the mutual pledge to uphold its promises over time. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the opening episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and historian David Kennedy to ask a deceptively simple question: what does it actually take for democracy to work? Rice argues that the Declaration of Independence marks not the birth of democracy, but the end of tyranny—and that the real work begins afterward. Democracies flourish only when citizens build durable institutions: a workable balance of power among branches, an independent judiciary, and (often most crucially) a vibrant civil society that channels protest into law, governance, and everyday problem-solving. Drawing on her experiences—from segregated Birmingham to global transitions—Rice highlights how democracies fail when executives become unchecked (Russia) or when states are too weak to govern (Afghanistan), and how they can succeed when institutions gain legitimacy over time (Poland, Kenya, and examples shaped by external constraints like the EU). Kennedy responds by tracing the Declaration's promise of equality as principle, observed condition, aspiration, and enforceable law—while emphasizing the tension between democratic equality and a pluralistic society. He closes with a warning about declining trust in institutions and one another, urging renewed attention to civil society—the practical, local, often unglamorous work that turns founding ideals into lived reality. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:[00:00:00] Welcome & series launch (Karlan + McConnell) Pam Karlan introduces the special episode; Michael McConnell launches The Declaration at 250 and the project's guiding question. [00:00:54] Framing the episode: What does democracy need to flourish? McConnell previews the episode's focus on democratic flourishing, featuring Condoleezza Rice with response from historian David Kennedy. [00:02:04] Rice: The Declaration ends tyranny; democracy is the harder next step Rice argues the Declaration is fundamentally revolutionary—overthrowing the old—raising the problem of how revolutions become democracies. [00:06:05] Rice: America's conditions, near-failures, and why separation of powers matters Rice describes the U.S. “luck,” the near-collapse under the Articles and the Civil War, and the Constitution's durability through distributed power. [00:11:37] Rice: Civil rights, law, and a “second founding” (1964–65) Drawing on personal experience and movement strategy, Rice emphasizes institutional change—litigation, amendments, and landmark legislation—as democracy's engine. [00:20:00] Rice: Institutions vs. culture—lessons from Russia, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Poland, Kenya, Hungary Rice rejects “DNA for democracy” explanations and shows how executive strength, civil society, and institutional legitimacy shape success or failure. [00:32:33] Kennedy: Equality's evolving meaning—and the civil society trust crisis Kennedy traces equality from Jefferson to the 14th Amendment and warns that declining trust and civic know-how signal weakening civil society. [00:42:52] Kennedy's question: “Spirit of constitutionalism,” plus depersonalization (social media/suburbanization) Rice defines constitutionalism as lived civic practice beyond paper rights; both discuss forces eroding community and shared institutions before closing. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The birthright citizenship case and immigration raids have drawn headlines and national attention, but Lucas Guttentag, who teaches immigration law at Stanford and Yale law schools, says some of the Trump administration's most consequential immigration changes are unfolding with far less public scrutiny. Guttentag, one of the nation's leading immigration law experts and founder of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, joins host Professor Pamela Karlan for a wide-ranging conversation about current American immigration policies. Guttentag discusses his time in the Biden administration and compares policies in the first Trump administration with those of the second. He also focuses on the Immigration Policy Tracking Project, an effort he launched in 2017 with law students to document every Trump administration immigration policy, implementation memo, directive, and related legal challenge. The tracker, he explains, is designed to make visible what can otherwise be hard to see: hundreds of policy changes that, taken together, are reshaping the immigration system. The episode examines what these changes mean for immigration courts, bond hearings, temporary protected status, green card applications, and the lawyers challenging the administration in court. One of Guttentag's central points is that immigration is a civil system, not a criminal one, and the distinction matters for anyone trying to understand what is happening now. Links: Lucas Guttentag >>> Stanford Law School page Immigration Policy Tracking Project >>> IPTP page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) The Immigration Policy Tracking Project (00:07:33) The Dismantling of the Immigration Court System (00:12:15) "Public Spectacle and Private Terror" — Tactics of Fear  (00:17:32) Asylum, TPS, and the Racial Undercurrent (00:21:51) The Courts Push Back  (00:29:22) What a Rebuilt Immigration System Would Look Like  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We are joined by guest co-host Professor Pam Karlan at the American Law Institute Annual Meeting for the last live show of season 6. We work through a busy stretch of the interim docket: the Alabama GVR in Allen v. Caster and what Callais has done to Section 2; the denied stay in the Virginia redistricting fight, Scott v. McDougle; and the mifepristone cases, Danco and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, where Thomas rides the Comstock Act alone and Alito takes it personally. Then a turn to executive power and the term's looming merits decisions—birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, Humphrey's Executor—before audience questions on state voting rights acts, fixing the single-member-district statute, and whether you can wish yourself more wishes.Key Topics[00:00:11] - Live show introduction at the American Law Institute with guest host Pam Karlan[00:02:30] - Fallout from Louisiana v. Callais and the Alabama redistricting order[00:06:26] - Purcell principle, mid-election rule changes, and discriminatory intent findings[00:17:32] - Virginia's redistricting amendment case and why the Supreme Court declined to intervene[00:32:41] - Danco Laboratories / GenBioPro and the mifepristone stay[00:39:56] - Justice Thomas, the Comstock Act, and Justice Alito's dissent[00:47:15] - Big-picture trends in executive power and the Court's posture toward the administration[01:00:54] - Audience Q&A on Congress, district design, and gerrymandering reform[01:05:47] - The President's public attacks on the Court and possible effects on future cases

Former Department of Justice pardon attorney Liz Oyer describes being pulled out of a meeting, told to pack up her belongings, and walked out by security the same day. Her offense, she said, was refusing to recommend that the attorney general restore gun rights to a politically connected celebrity without the information she believed was necessary to make that judgment safely. “Once you compromise your integrity, you cannot get it back,” she said. That moment sets the tone for a candid conversation about what it means to serve inside the Department of Justice, and what happens when career lawyers believe the institution they devoted themselves to has changed. Moderated by Stanford Law professor Pam Karlan, this episode brings together Oyer, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Rosen, and former DOJ civil rights lawyer Stacey Young for a discussion of public service, prosecutorial independence, clemency, civil rights, professional ethics, and the difficult questions of when to stay, when to leave, and when to speak out. The panel, recorded at a live law school event and presented by the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession and the Neukom Center for the Rule of Law, offers a close look at the professional obligations of government lawyers from people who spent years doing the work: Rosen supervising more than 1,000 prosecutions stemming from January 6; Oyer overseeing the federal pardon process and thousands of clemency petitions; and Young working in the Civil Rights Division while also founding the DOJ Gender Equality Network. Karlan, herself a former DOJ official, draws out the deeper questions behind their stories. Links: Former DOJ Lawyers Discuss Duty, Integrity, and Public Service During Stanford Law Panel >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Introductions and what drew each panelist to DOJ (00:08:24) Loyalty inside the institution (00:11:19) January 6th pardons: impact on prosecutors and lack of vetting (00:32:04) Liz Oyer's firing over the Mel Gibson gun-rights recommendation (00:43:23) The "stay or go" dilemma and the bifurcated job market (00:47:15) Rebuilding DOJ: norms vs. enforceable laws and the communications problem [00:57:00) Student Q&A: red lines, accountability, and the Epstein files Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, two of the nation's leading election law scholars dissect a ruling that could soon reverberate through elections at every level of government. Nathaniel Persily joins Pam Karlan for a discussion about the Callais decision—what it means for racial representation, partisan gerrymandering, and anti-discrimination law. Karlan and Persily are longtime collaborators, including as co-authors of The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. Their conversation traces the Voting Rights Act's evolution from the landmark Thornburg v. Gingles decision to the Court's latest narrowing of Section 2, and examines how the ruling could affect congressional maps in 2026, minority representation at every level of government, and the broader future of disparate impact protections. As Persily explains, the Court has moved from treating partisan gerrymandering as constitutionally suspect to a place where it is now “a legitimate state practice, a legitimate interest that's almost being celebrated.”   Links: Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X [00:00:30] Introduction: The Voting Rights Act Under Siege [00:02:18] Section 2's Original Promise: Results Over Intent [00:11:06] Louisiana v. Cali: Dismantling the Gingles Framework [00:23:17] From Unconstitutional to Celebrated: The Partisan Gerrymandering Evolution [00:28:14] Future Implications: Elections and Civil Rights Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sophia Lin Lakin, JD '11 (MS '04, BA '02), director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, challenges the stated premises behind many current voting restrictions, including claims about widespread non-citizen voting. “If we're worried about the integrity of our elections,” she tells Stanford Law professor and host Pam Karlan, “we should be worried about making sure that more people are participating in our elections and not chasing a fantasy.” That concern—how long-standing efforts to restrict voting access can make it harder for eligible voters to participate—runs through the episode, which was recorded shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map, which had created a second majority-Black district, holding that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision could make it harder to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge maps that dilute minority voting strength. Lakin and Karlan discuss what is at stake when access to the ballot becomes harder and the rules for translating votes into political power begin to shift. Their conversation focuses on proof-of-citizenship requirements, mail ballots, voter roll purges, and redistricting battles, offering a timely look at the legal fights shaping who can vote, whose ballots count, and whether communities can elect representatives of their choice.   Links: Sophia Lin Lakin >>> ACLU page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) The Three Buckets of Voting Rights  (00:02:35) Voter Roll Surveillance  (00:06:17) The Non-Citizen Voting Myth and the Dangers of Faulty Databases  (00:10:23) Citizenship Documentation Requirements  (00:16:19) Mail Voting Rules and the Materiality Provision  (00:21:00) Section Two of the Voting Rights Act and Redistricting Battles  (00:28:51) Race, Politics, and the Future of Fair Maps  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that changed that understanding. According to the President's executive order, going forward, the only people who will be U.S. citizens at birth are people who are born in the United States to parents who are citizens, at least one of whom is a citizen, or at least one of the parents is a legal permanent resident of the United States. And what does all of this mean for Native Americans?  In this episode, Greg Ablavsky, a Stanford Law professor and scholar of federal Indian law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss President Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship--a case now at the Supreme Court. The discussion centers on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Ablavsky explains why federal Indian law has become part of that debate. He traces the distinctive legal status of Native nations within the United States, the historical exception for members of tribal nations, and the way that history appears in seminal cases such as Elk v. Wilkins.  The conversation also looks at the relationship between Elk and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. Along the way, Karlan and Ablavsky break down why history matters to the government's current effort to argue for new limits on birthright citizenship--and more. Links: Gregory Ablavsky >>> Stanford Law page Federal Ground: Governing Property and Violence in the First U.S. Territories >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth? (00:03:54) The Origins of the 14th Amendment  (00:05:58) "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" (00:11:42) Citizenship at the Supreme Court (00:17:03) Native Americans, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, and the Presidency (00:18:49) The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA (Barbara) — Analogies, Originalism, and the Native American (00:28:31) Practical Chaos, Hard Cases and What the Court Should Do Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When President Trump declared a national emergency and imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), businesses challenged the move, arguing the president did not have authority under that statute to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court recently agreed.  On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with international trade expert Alan Sykes, professor of law and Warren Christopher Professor in the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy, to unpack the Court's 6–3 decision. Sykes is a leading expert on the application of economics to legal problems and the author of the book The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements. At the heart of the case, Sykes explains, was the question of whether a statute that allows the president to “regulate importation” can be stretched to authorize taxes on imports. The majority said no, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns the taxing power to Congress, and that if Congress intended to hand that power over, it would have said so clearly. The conversation explores the statutory arguments, the role of the Major Questions Doctrine, and the unusual alignments among the justices. But the ruling raises as many questions as it answers, Sykes notes. What happens to billions in tariffs already collected? Do international trade deals struck in the shadow of these tariffs still stand? And with other statutory tools available is this really the end of the tariff saga, or just the next chapter? Links: Alan O. Sykes >>> Stanford Law page The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Tariffs and IEEPA (00:10:53) Statutory text and the history of tariffs (00:13:54) “Regulate importation” and the Major Questions Doctrine (00:17:56) Liquidation Timing, finality, and the 314‑day rule (00:19:11) The Court of International Trade (00:29:53) From IEEPA to Section 122 and what's next under Section 301 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced it was rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding, the legal foundation for federal regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The administration has called the move the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. What does it actually do? And what happens next? On this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Deborah Sivas, an expert in environmental law, joins co-host Pam Karlan to unpack the legal strategy behind the repeal, the role of recent Supreme Court decisions, and what's likely to unfold in the courts. Among other ramifications, they also explore California's authority to adopt its own, more aggressive emissions standards and what this latest move by the Trump administration signals for the future of federal climate regulation. Links: Deborah Sivas >>> Stanford Law page Environmental Law Clinic >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00): The EPA's rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding (00:06:43): Climate science consensus and legal strategy (00:16:01): The litigation roadmap: process vs. substance (00:29:53): Wind power on the cusp (00:30:10): Solar economics and federal land authority Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In a timely conversation about the ACLU's massive docket of cases, Pam Karlan speaks with Anthony Romero, JD '90, executive director of the ACLU, about the surge of civil rights and civil liberties battles facing the country right now.Romero discusses major pieces of litigation spanning immigration, free speech, voting rights, and government accountability. A key focus is the Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship, where the Trump administration is attempting to deny citizenship to certain children born in the U.S., a move Romero calls an attack on one of the core promises of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also explore what happens when the government pushes the boundaries of compliance with court rulings and what that means for the rule of law.Tune in for a compelling conversation about the cases that could help define the next chapter of civil liberties law in the United States.Links:Anthony Romero >>> ACLU pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Introduction and ACLU's Rapidly Expanding Docket(02:30) Small but Mighty—ACLU vs. Federal Power(07:00) Inside a Burgeoning Docket(11:30) Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court(16:00) Enforcement at Scale and the Rule of Law(21:00): An Inflection Point in Public Sentiment Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In a world where confidence is rewarded and humility can feel like a liability, Stanford Law professor Robert MacCoun argues for something radical: fewer unwavering opinions, more critical reflection, and a better way to disagree. On Stanford Legal, MacCoun joins co-hosts Pamela Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a conversation about how “habits of mind” borrowed from science can help citizens, lawyers, and policymakers think more clearly and function more effectively in a pluralistic society.MacCoun is the James and Patricia Kowal Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, a professor by courtesy in Stanford's Psychology Department, and the university's senior associate vice provost for research. Trained as a social psychologist, his work sits at the intersection of law, science, and public policy, with decades of research on decision-making, bias, and the social dynamics that shape how evidence is interpreted. In the episode, he draws on his most recent book, Third Millennium Thinking: Creating Sense in a World of Nonsense, co-authored with Nobel Prize–winning physicist Saul Perlmutter and philosopher John Campbell, to explain why probabilistic thinking, intellectual humility, and what he calls an “opinion diet” are essential tools for modern civic life. Links:Robert MacCoun >>> Stanford Law pageThird Millennium Thinking >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Introduction and Noise vs. Bias(00:04:42) The Power of Probabilistic Thinking(00:12:20) Juries, Community Judgment, and Reasonable Doubt(00:13:23) Habits of Community(00:25:08) Motivation, Tools, and Decision Processes(00:26:14) When Evidence Won't Settle It Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Professor Kim Scheppele has spent much of her career watching democracies rise and fall. She went to Hungary in the early 1990s expecting to study democratic optimism after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Instead, decades later, she found herself documenting how constitutional democracy can be dismantled from the inside out.That experience frames a wide-ranging conversation on the latest episode of Stanford Legal, where host Professor Pam Karlan speaks with Scheppele, the Lawrence S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton and a visiting professor at Stanford Law School, about how democracies crumble, and why the United States is not exempt.Drawing on years of on-the-ground research in Hungary, Russia, and other countries, Scheppele explains a central shift in democratic collapse: it no longer arrives through overt rupture, but through elections followed by legal and constitutional maneuvering. Leaders campaign as democrats, win office, and then use technical changes to the law, including court rules, budgetary controls, and civil-service structures, to weaken checks and rig the system in their favor.The discussion turns to the United States, examining how party polarization, shifting institutional loyalties, and expanding claims of executive power have made familiar safeguards less reliable than many assumed.Links:Kim Scheppele >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00)  Learning in Wartime: A scholar's antidote to the “cataract of nonsense”(00:08:17) Patterns abroad and at home—are U.S. checks in danger?(00:15:04) Naming the playbook(00:32:07) More litigation—access, risk, and the pace of change(00:32:39) Restoring democracy through law Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Can the United States arrest a foreign head of state by sending FBI agents—and military troops—into another country? On the latest episode of Stanford Legal,  Professor Pam Karlan sits down with international law expert and Stanford Law lecturer Allen Weiner to discuss the recent extraction of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro. Their wide-ranging conversation focuses on the uneasy space where U.S. law collides with the constraints of international law.Weiner, a former U.S. State Department legal adviser and now director of several international law–and humanitarian-focused programs at Stanford Law School, explains how domestic legal theories advanced to justify Operation Absolute Resolve in contrast with the UN Charter's ban on the use of force. He situates the episode in a longer arc of U.S. efforts to reconcile military action with international legal limits, including earlier debates over actions in Kosovo and Libya.The legal questions are substantial, but the stakes ultimately turn on precedent and norms: how U.S. actions are understood by other states, what they signal to rivals such as Russia and China, and whether the international system begins to resemble the logic captured in Thucydides' Peloponnesian Wars—that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”Links:Allen Weiner >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00) Is a threat a use of force? (00:16:18) Pressure, coercion, and the non-intervention line (00:17:02) Venezuela policy and the specter of escalation (00:28:24) Law, power, and the South China Sea  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What are the legal implications of the unprecedented mass pardoning of the January 6th rioters? What does it say about American rule of law? President Biden's DOJ prosecuted nearly 1,600 of the January 6, 2021, rioters—many for acts of shocking violence against police and government offices. On January 20, newly sworn-in President Trump, in one of his first official acts, issued a sweeping grant of clemency to all of the rioters charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol attack. He pardoned most defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The response from some of these violent rioters since the pardons has been alarming.“The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. We need to find and put them behind bars for what they did,” said Enrique Tarrio, the former national Proud Boys leader, sentenced to a 22-year sentence on seditious conspiracy charges, on Alex Jones' podcast soon after his pardon. Our guests today are Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar and former DOJ prosecutor Brendan Ballou.Sinnar's scholarship, including a recent study of hate groups, focuses on the legal treatment of political violence, the procedural dimensions of civil rights litigation, and the role of institutions in protecting individual rights and democratic values in the national security contextBallou was a lawyer at the Department of Justice for five years. He resigned on January 23 soon after President Trump's pardons. In a New York Times opinion essay, he wrote: “For while some convicted rioters seem genuinely remorseful, and others appear simply ready to put politics behind them, many others are emboldened by the termination of what they see as unjust prosecutions. Freed by the president, they have never been more dangerous.” He graduated from Stanford Law in 2016.Links:Shirin Sinnar >>> Stanford Law pageNew York Times piece by Brendan Ballou >>> I Prosecuted the Capitol Rioters. They Have Never Been More Dangerous.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The January 6th Prosecutions and the Pardon Power(00:06:26) Rewriting History and the Threat of Political Violence (00:11:56) The Future of Political Violence in the U.S. (17:24) Addressing Militia Violence and Legal Gaps(21:37) State-Level Prosecutions and Risks of Expanding Criminal Laws(25:27) Pardons, Political Violence, and Historical Parallels   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans' private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation's largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.Links:Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page“The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The Rise of Executive Power(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Over a 35-year career at the Department of Justice, Jonathan Wroblewski, JD '86, watched the country's stance on criminal sentencing harden, soften, recalibrate, and shift again. One of his early cases at the DOJ, which involved a cross-burning in rural Georgia, sparked a fascination with sentencing policy that shaped the rest of his career. Today, he is one of the country's leading experts on sentencing law and policy.In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan talks with Wroblewski about crime and punishment, including the evolution of modern sentencing policies. Wroblewski, who has been serving as a visiting instructor at Stanford Law teaching courses on sentencing and AI in criminal justice, also offers a look inside his long career at the DOJ, where Karlan also served two separate stints as a political appointee.The conversation moves between how crime waves shape public attitudes, why some sentencing reforms take hold while others stall, and what happens inside the DOJ when long-standing norms begin to erode. Wroblewski's stories, drawn from decades of work across administrations, bring those shifts into sharper focus.Links:Jonathan Wroblewski >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Intro to Jonathan Wroblewski's Career (05:01) Evolution of Sentencing Policies (15:01) Shifts in Sentencing Philosophies (25:01) Public Perception and Crime Rates (35:01) Future Perspectives for Fair and Effective Legal Practices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

“The amount of chaos that's been introduced into the federal health policy landscape is unprecedented,” says Michelle Mello, professor at Stanford Law School and the Stanford University School of Medicine.That turmoil, she explains, has left major gaps in expertise, trust, and leadership—and states are rushing to fill the void. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pamela S. Karlan talks with Mello about what this moment means for the future of science, public health, research, and the law.Mello describes how the hollowing out of career expertise at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has upended vaccine policy and research funding, forcing states into unfamiliar leadership roles. She and Karlan also unpack how shifting scientific guidance during the pandemic eroded public confidence, how politicized grant-making is reshaping the research ecosystem, and state governments' growing role in creating what she calls a “shadow CDC.”Despite the turmoil, Mello points to a few bright spots: state-level experimentation could generate valuable evidence of what works and what does not, and there are reassuring signs from the lower courts, she says, which she believes are capable of separating law from politics.Earlier this year, Mello explored many of these themes in her JAMA Health Forum paper, “The Hard Road Ahead for State Public Health Departments.”Links:Michelle Mello >>> Stanford Law pageJAMA Health Forum paper >>> “The Hard Road Ahead for State Public Health DepartmentsConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Health Policy and COVID-19 Vaccines(00:05:10) The Vaccine Rollout Challenges(00:10:25) Public Trust and Recommendations(00:16:40) The Role of the Vaccine Committee(00:23:55) NIH Grant Process Insight(00:29:43) MIT's Stance on NIH Compact Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When the National Guard shows up in American cities, it's usually after hurricanes, fires, or floods, not political fights. But recent federal deployments have changed the landscape and raised pressing questions about how far a president's domestic military powers can go. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pam Karlan talks with Professor Bernadette Meyler about the growing use of the National Guard for domestic law enforcement and what it reveals about shifting boundaries of presidential power.  Links:Bernadette Meyler >>> Stanford Law pageTheaters of Pardoning >>> Stanford Law publications pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Overview of National Guard Deployment (00:06:01) Changes in Immigration Enforcement (00:13:01) Continuous Deployment and Monitoring Elections (00:18:01) Training and Law Enforcement Activities of National Guard (00:24:31) Presidential Powers and Constraints (00:29:38) Ninth Circuit Panel's Decision and Future Prospects Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When politics drives prosecutions, what happens to the rule of law? Are we in uncharted waters? Stanford Legal host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with her colleague criminal justice expert Robert Weisberg to unpack the extraordinary federal indictments of former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—with more potentially on the way.Weisberg, the Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, explains how grand jury indictments normally work, why these cases are unusual, and how selective and vindictive prosecution claims might play out when the evidence of political motivation is broadcast via Truth Social missives. Karlan and Weisberg also discuss how Justice Department norms separating the White House from individual charging decisions have been systematically broken—and why these indictments, built on shaky legal ground and thin narratives, could face serious procedural challenges.Links:Robert Weisberg >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Targeted Prosecutions (00:10:00) Understanding Selective vs. Vindictive Prosecution (00:20:00) Comey Indictment and Related Current Events (00:27:00) John Bolton's Legal Troubles (00:34:00) Potential Challenges for Adam Schiff  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and assumed the power to levy tariffs, introducing uncertainty into global trading by reneging on previously negotiated agreements. One of the attorneys representing the challengers to the president's decree in Trump v. VOS is Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a constitutional law expert and former Tenth Circuit judge. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited, is set to have ramifications well beyond trade. As McConnell wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed: “The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952…Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president's trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution's architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government's three branches from becoming all powerful.” McConnell joins Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a discussion about this important case, exploring whether presidents have the authority to tax through tariffs without clear congressional approval, the historical and constitutional roots of "no taxation without representation," and the seismic ramifications of a redefinition of the limits of executive economic power.Links:Michael McConnell >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PagePam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan interviews her Stanford Law School colleague Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette about actions by the Trump administration that Ouellette says are undermining scientific research and jeopardizing America's longstanding global leadership in medicine and innovation. Drawing on an essay she penned for Just Security, Ouellette explains how decades of bipartisan support for federally funded science—an engine of American innovation since World War II—is now at risk. From canceling grants already approved through peer review, to capping essential “indirect cost” reimbursements, she details how these moves threaten not just labs and universities but also patients, whose clinical trials are being abruptly halted.  Ouellette also highlights a second front in her current scholarship: how drug development policy can be better aligned with public health needs. As a member of a National Academies committee, she recently co-authored a report showing that both private investment and federal funding often fail to prioritize diseases causing the greatest suffering. Links:Lisa Larrimore Ouellette >>> Stanford Law pageThe Trump Administration's Multi-Front Assault on Federal Research Funding  >>> Just Security pageStanford Law's Lisa Ouellette Helps Shape New Report on Drug Development Reform  >>> Stanford Lawyer online featureConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Research Funding (05:01) The Competitive Grant Process (15:01) Addressing Disease Burden (20:00) Impacts of Stopped Clinical Trials (25:01) The Role of Federal Investment in Innovation 

At the urging of President Trump, the Texas legislature has launched a mid‑decade redistricting effort aimed at securing additional Republican seats in Congress. If successful, this effort could have far‑reaching implications for representation and governance—and spur other states to try the same. In this episode of Stanford Legal, two of Stanford Law School's—and the nation's—leading election law experts sit down to untangle the legal and political stakes of today's redistricting wars. In their wide‑ranging discussion, Professors Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily shed light on Texas's push to add five new Republican‑leaning seats, the Supreme Court's recent decision to re‑argue Louisiana v. Callais—a move that could reshape how the Voting Rights Act is applied—and the broader battles over race, representation, and the future of redistricting in America.Links:Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Voting Rights and Gerrymandering (05:31)The Legal Landscape of Redistricting(15:01) The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering (25:31) The Evolving Role of the Judiciary (35:01) Future Implications for the Voting Rights Act 

Trump-era executive orders, police hiring standards, and college admissions all converge in a decades-long debate over disparate impact, one of the most misunderstood yet consequential doctrines in civil rights law. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Ralph Richard Banks, faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice, joins host Professor Pamela Karlan for a deep dive into how the disparate impact doctrine really works, why it matters, and what's at stake when it's attacked in the name of “meritocracy.” From the landmark Griggs case to modern college admissions, Banks dissects the arguments on all sides—showing how this sometimes-vilified legal doctrine not only helps root out discrimination, but can also strengthen, rather than undermine, meritocracy. Links:Rick Banks >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction to Executive Orders and Disparate Impact (00:03:30) The Function and Impact of Universities in Society (00:09:46) Understanding Different Measures of Merit (00:13:20) Legacy Preferences and Nepotistic Systems (00:18:16) Disparate Impact in Standardized Testing (00:23:38) The Future of College Admissions and Rick Banks' Upcoming Book 

In this episode of Stanford Legal, the tables are turned as Professor Diego Zambrano interviews the show's usual host, Professor Pam Karlan, about the growing politicization of the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. Drawing on her experience in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division during both the Obama and Biden administrations, Karlan describes how recent loyalty tests, internal purges, and retaliatory transfers have hollowed out one of the nation's most critical legal institutions. Karlan and Zambrano explore how the DOJ has historically relied on a “thin layer” of political leadership atop a deep bench of expert, nonpartisan career lawyers—and why that structure is now under threat. They discuss the DOJ's broad civil rights mandate, the challenges of a politicized environment, and the legal and moral consequences of eroding prosecutorial independence. The conversation makes the case that what's happening now is not just a policy shift—it's an institutional crisis that threatens the rule of law and the very idea of justice in America. Links:Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law pageNeukom Center for the Rule of Law >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction and Constraints Under Civil Service Reform Act(00:05:01) The Impact of Political Agenda on DOJ's Functioning(00:08:31) Challenges Faced by Career Lawyers(00:14:16) Interaction Between Political Appointees and Career Lawyers(00:17:46) Meritocracy and Recruitment in the DOJ(00:20:01) comparative perspective in understanding the DOJ's special role

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer 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 at nexfirm dot 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 transcription 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 dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.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 at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.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 at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, 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 a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.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 at nexfirm dot 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 at Substack dot 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 dot substack dot 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, July 23. 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

Amid escalating federal pressure on universities, Stanford Law School alum Greg Lukianoff, JD '00, joins host Professor Pam Karlan for a sharp look at the free speech firestorms engulfing universities like Harvard and Columbia. First Amendment champion, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff recently penned an essay for The Atlantic titled “Trump's Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard.” In this episode, Lukianoff expands on his essay, breaking down the Trump administration's tactics to punish elite institutions, from defunding threats and faculty interference to student visa crackdowns, while also calling out universities themselves for stifling dissent and eroding public trust in higher education.Links:Greg Lukianoff  >>> FIRE pageThe Canceling of the American Mind >>> web pageThe Coddling of the American Mind >>> web page“Trump's Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard” >>> The Atlantic pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction of Greg Lukianoff(00:05:01) Free Speech and Academic Freedom(00:10:01) Challenges to Free Speech(00:15:01) Legal Cases and Free Speech(00:20:01) Free Speech and the Government (00:30:01) Future of Free Speech

In this episode, Stanford Law Professor Evelyn Douek, a First Amendment scholar and permanent U.S. resident, expands on her recent Atlantic essay, “Can I Teach the First Amendment If I Only Have a Green Card?” She reflects on the paradox of teaching constitutional protections for free speech while watching the U.S. government detain or revoke visas for foreign students and other non-citizen residents engaged in protest or student journalism. Douek joins fellow Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan to explore what these developments could mean for the future of American universities, long known for drawing global talent. Their conversation highlights the growing tension between the nation's commitment to free expression and policies that penalize dissent by non-citizens.Links:Evelyn Douek  >>> Stanford Law page“Can I Teach the First Amendment If I Only Have a Green Card?” >>> The Atlantic pageModerated Content podcast >>>  Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction and Exercising First Amendment Rights(00:01:53) Writing the Essay(00:02:27) Teaching the First Amendment(00:15:25) Freedom of Speech and Religion(00:16:11) Challenges of Teaching the First Amendment

The LA Superior Court is the largest single unified trial court in the United States, serving the approximately 10 million residents of Los Angeles County—the cases it handles spanning a wide range of legal matters, from civil cases to criminal cases, family law, and juvenile matters.As the state and county have grown, so has demand on the legal system. Access to justice—the inability for Americans to find and/or afford legal representation—has been called a crisis. What does that mean? What can be done about it?Stanford Law School's Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession and Legal Design Lab released a groundbreaking diagnostic report in April that outlines a blueprint for creating more innovative, modern, and accessible courts. The report marks a significant milestone in the unique partnership established in January 2024 between the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (the Court – SCLAC) and Stanford Law School. Created in collaboration with court leadership, frontline court staff, and community partners, the findings of the Stanford report demonstrate the Court's commitment to enhancing the self-represented litigant experience and its dedication to leading in justice innovation.Our guests joining Pam Karlan for this episode include Stanford Law Professor David Freeman Engstrom, the co-director of the Rhode Center whose work focuses on access to justice in the millions of low-dollar but highly consequential cases, including debt collection, eviction, foreclosure, and child support actions, that shape the lives of Americans each year;  Margaret Hagan, the executive director of the Legal Design Lab at Stanford Law School whose researches, designs, and develops new ways to make the U.S. civil justice system work better for people; and Daniel Bernal, associate director of research at the Rhode Center whose work explores the intersection of civil procedure and access to justice, with a focus on designing and testing innovations to make state courts work better for people. Links:David Freeman Engstrom  >>> Stanford Law pageMargaret Hagan  >>> Stanford Law pageDaniel Bernal  >>> Stanford Law pageA Blueprint for Expanding Access to Justice in Los Angeles Superior Court's Eviction Docket  >>>  Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introductions and Tour of the LA Superior Court(00:21:25) Use of Technology and the Pain Points in Court Systems (00:27:25) National Implications of Court Innovations (00:33:00 Court as a Central Hub for Legal Problem-Solving (00:35:04) Collaboration and Future Prospects

On February 19 of this year, President Donald Trump issued one of his first executive orders, Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy, leaving no doubt his aim to reduce its size and scope. As DOGE got to work firing federal workers—and cutting entire agencies, the president also fired heads of agencies—Democratic and Republican—cleaning house of leadership not deemed on side. As EO whiplash continues, so does pushback, with many in the public learning about the people behind the cost-cutting and loyalty tests—the federal workers and government agencies helping to make American life run smoothly and safely. What are the legal questions?Joining this episode is Anne Joseph O'Connell, a leading scholar of U.S. administrative law and the federal bureaucracy. She was a presidentially appointed member of the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency dedicated to improving regulatory procedures, from October 2022 to January 2025. She combines a lawyer's doctrinal acumen and institutional sensibilities with a political scientist's deep understanding of American politics and political theory and an empiricist's rigor about facts in the world. Her scholarship explains how government really works. She has done pioneering and award-winning work on previously unforeseen questions about the problem of vacancies in federal office and about the legal and normative implications of unorthodox government entities such as the U.S. Postal Service or Smithsonian.Links:Anne Joseph O'Connell  >>> Stanford Law pageActings >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00)  Introduction to Anne Joseph O'Connell's background(00:03:44) Actings in Government(00:17:04) The Importance of Government Accountability(00:19:22) The Role of Detailees in Government and The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)(00:27:24) Government Waste and Fraud

Since ChatGPT came on the scene, numerous incidents have surfaced involving attorneys submitting court filings riddled with AI-generated hallucinations—plausible-sounding case citations that purport to support key legal propositions but are, in fact, entirely fictitious. As sanctions against attorneys mount, it seems clear there are a few kinks in the tech. Even AI tools designed specifically for lawyers can be prone to hallucinations. In this episode, we look at the potential and risks of AI-assisted tech in law and policy with two Stanford Law researchers at the forefront of this issue: RegLab Director Professor Daniel Ho and JD/PhD student and computer science researcher Mirac Suzgun. Together with several co-authors, they examine the emerging risks in two recent papers, “Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models” (Oxford Journal of Legal Analysis, 2024) and the forthcoming “Hallucination-Free?” in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. Ho and Suzgun offer new insights into how legal AI is working, where it's failing, and what's at stake.Links:Daniel Ho  >>> Stanford Law pageStanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) >>> Stanford University pageRegulation, Evaluation, and Governance Lab (RegLab) >>> Stanford University pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Introduction to AI in Legal Education (00:05:01) AI Tools in Legal Research and Writing(00:12:01) Challenges of AI-Generated Content (00:20:0) Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback(00:30:01) Audience Q&A

On March 6, President Trump issued the executive order “Addressing Risk from Perkins Coie LLP,” essentially preventing the firm from doing business with the federal government, stripping its staff of security clearances. It was the first of several presidential orders aimed at law firms that represented clients and/or employed attorneys at odds with Trump.At the same time, Trump and members of his administration have voiced loud opposition to judges who rule against him and, in what many see as a weaponization of justice, have fired members of the Department of Justice without cause. Even the new Attorney General Pam Bondi is breaking with long held protocol by openly defending the administration, taking a partisan position when defending her decision not to investigate the Signal scandal of top national security officers sharing war plans via the public ap, saying: “If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton's home. Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to.”Are the norms and practices that have maintained the rule of law in the United States straining under the pressure of the Trump administration?Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky, a criminal law expert, joins Pam Karlan for a look at the first 100 days of the Trump administration—and the unprecedented number of executive orders targeting rule of law norms. Sklansky, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center who teaches and writes about policing, prosecution, criminal law, and the law of evidence, is the author, most recently of Criminal Justice in Divided America: Police, Punishment, and the Future of Our Democracy, was published earlier this year by Harvard University Press. Earlier he practiced labor law in Washington D.C. and served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.Links:David Sklansky  >>> Stanford Law pageCriminal Justice in Divided America >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) The Rule of Law and Executive Orders(00:15:01) Legal Profession's Response to Political Pressure(00:27:01) Impact on Universities and Academic Freedom(00:37:01) Redefining Pro Bono Work(00:44:42) The Importance of the Rule of Law

Joining Pam for this week's episode is Stanford Law Professor Alan Sykes, a leading expert on the application of economics to legal problems whose most recent scholarship is focused on international economic relations. In short, he is an international trade and law expert—and the right person to help us understand today's chaos. The discussion covers the credibility of the United States in international trade negotiations, the feasibility of renegotiating trade deals with multiple countries within a short timeframe, and the unconventional methods employed by the Trump administration. Sykes also highlights the importance of previously negotiated deals and the World Trade Organization—and how the Trump administration has sidelined the organization. This episode offers a comprehensive look at the legal and economic dimensions of Trump's tariffs, making it a must-listen for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of modern trade policies.Links:Alan O. Sykes  >>> Stanford Law pageThe Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Introduction and Overview of Trump's Tariffs(00:04:05) Impact on Imported Goods and Consumers(00:04:34) Exemptions and Intermediate Goods(00:05:14) Historical Context of U.S. Tariffs(00:24:38) Credibility of the United States and the 90-Day Pause

Keith Whittington is joined by David Cole, the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law Center. He is also the former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. This episode focuses on the recent “Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia,” of which Professor Cole was a lead author. That statement was published on the website of the New York Review of Books, and was signed by an ideologically diverse group of 18 scholars ranging from Steven Calabresi and Eugene Volokh to Erwin Chemerinsky and Pam Karlan. Keith Whittington also signed the statement. 

How do we prevent or catch mismanagement, corruption, and waste of taxpayers' dollars in federal agencies? On January 24, 2025, days into his second administration, President Trump fired Inspectors General from 17 different federal agencies, including the Department of Labor. If no one is watching, does that mean there's nothing to see?In this episode Pam Karlan is joined by Glenn Fine, a former Inspector General of both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. Glenn highlights the extensive work involved in detecting and deterring waste, fraud, and abuse within these massive agencies. He discusses the differences between the DOJ and DOD, emphasizing the unique challenges and the importance of understanding each agency's culture and operations. Through detailed examples, including politicized hiring at the DOJ and a tragic incident at the Bureau of Prisons, he illustrates the breadth and impact of the investigations conducted by Inspectors General—and the essential function of these watchdogs in maintaining integrity and accountability within federal agencies. Earlier in his career, Glenn served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Washington D.C., where he handled criminal cases, including more than 35 jury trials. He also worked in private practice in two law firms.  He is the author of the book Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government, with a foreword by General Jim Mattis. He currently is a fellow at the Brookings Institution and serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University—and as a visiting lecturer at Stanford Law School.Links:Glenn Fine >>> Stanford Law pageWatchdogs >>> UVA Press pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00)  Introduction and Overview of the Inspector General's Role(00:03:52) The Impact of Inspector General Reports(00:04:39) Notable Investigations at DOJ and DOD(00:15:56) The Role of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service(00:17:23) Coordinating COVID-19 Relief Oversight(00:27:59) Importance of the IG's role in maintaining government accountability

International Law expert Allen Weiner joins Pam for a comprehensive overview of the legal challenges and humanitarian concerns in one of the world's most contentious regions, looking at the Israel/Gaza conflict and the delicate balance between military strategy and civilian safety. Allen and Pam explore the principles of proportionality in warfare, highlighting the legal and ethical considerations of targeting high-level military commanders in civilian areas. They then discuss President Trump's controversial proposal for Gaza's future and its plan to transform the region into a resort. The conversation also touches on the ICJ indictments against Palestinian and Israeli leaders, the role of satellite imagery in legal research, and the broader implications of governance and security in Gaza. Links:Allen Weiner >>> Stanford Law page“There is Nothing Left: Jus ad Bellum Proportionality and Israel's War Against Hamas in Gaza” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction and Overview of Gaza Conflict (00:04:20) Proportionality in Warfare (00:19:50) The Day After Phenomenon (00:28:22) Governance and Security of Gaza (00:29:11) Conclusion and Call to Action 

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans' private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation's largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.Links:Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page“The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The Rise of Executive Power(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington

What are the legal implications of the unprecedented mass pardoning of the January 6th rioters? What does it say about American rule of law? President Biden's DOJ prosecuted nearly 1,600 of the January 6, 2021, rioters—many for acts of shocking violence against police and government offices. On January 20, newly sworn-in President Trump, in one of his first official acts, issued a sweeping grant of clemency to all of the rioters charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol attack. He pardoned most defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The response from some of these violent rioters since the pardons has been alarming.“The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. We need to find and put them behind bars for what they did,” said Enrique Tarrio, the former national Proud Boys leader, sentenced to a 22-year sentence on seditious conspiracy charges, on Alex Jones' podcast soon after his pardon. Our guests today are Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar and former DOJ prosecutor Brendan Ballou.Sinnar's scholarship, including a recent study of hate groups, focuses on the legal treatment of political violence, the procedural dimensions of civil rights litigation, and the role of institutions in protecting individual rights and democratic values in the national security contextBallou was a lawyer at the Department of Justice for five years. He resigned on January 23 soon after President Trump's pardons. In a New York Times opinion essay, he wrote: “For while some convicted rioters seem genuinely remorseful, and others appear simply ready to put politics behind them, many others are emboldened by the termination of what they see as unjust prosecutions. Freed by the president, they have never been more dangerous.” He graduated from Stanford Law in 2016.Links:Shirin Sinnar >>> Stanford Law pageNew York Times piece by Brendan Ballou >>> I Prosecuted the Capitol Rioters. They Have Never Been More Dangerous.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The January 6th Prosecutions and the Pardon Power(00:06:26) Rewriting History and the Threat of Political Violence (00:11:56) The Future of Political Violence in the U.S. (17:24) Addressing Militia Violence and Legal Gaps(21:37) State-Level Prosecutions and Risks of Expanding Criminal Laws(25:27) Pardons, Political Violence, and Historical Parallels  

Watch Politics War Room & James Carville Explains on YouTube. In this special New Year's episode, James and Al welcome a panel of the country's best and brightest composed of Jane Mayer, Pam Karlan, Roger Altman, George Stevens Jr., and Jill Abramson.  They discuss what to expect from Trump and the Republicans in 2025, the war for the soul of journalism, the best of pop culture, the state of the economy, the future of the rule of law, and much more.  Then, they take listener questions on the most pressing issues facing us in the year ahead and search for sources of hope going into 2025. Email your questions to James and Al at politicswarroom@gmail.com or tweet them to @politicon.  Make sure to include your city– we love to hear where you're from! More from James and Al: Get text updates from Politics War Room and Politicon. Watch Politics War Room & James Carville Explains on YouTube @PoliticsWarRoomOfficial CARVILLE: WINNING IS EVERYTHING, STUPID is streaming on Max!  You can also get updates and some great behind-the-scenes content by following James on Twitter @jamescarville and his new TikTok @realjamescarville James Carville & Al Hunt have launched the Politics War Room Substack Get More From This Week's Guests:  Jill Abramson: Twitter | NYT | Harvard | Author   Jane Mayer: Twitter | The New Yorker | Author of “Dark Money” & Other Books Professor Pam Karlan: Stanford Law | DOJ.gov | Supreme Court Litigation Clinic Roger Altman: Evercore | The Hamilton Project  George Stevens: Oscars.org | IMDB | George Stevens Academy 

Following the attempted assassination of Trump, Al and James discuss its effect on the race, the nomination of JD Vance, the Republican convention, and whether Biden's recent press and hail-mary plans can shake things up. Then, they welcome legal scholar Pam Karlan to analyze Judge Cannon's dismissal of Trump's charges for mishandling classified docs, defend the need for special counsel appointments, and explore the avenues the Justice Department has to reopen the case.  They also break down the Supreme Court's assault on the rule of law and call for a return of coherent legal reasoning and impartiality before it's too late. Email your questions to James and Al at politicswarroom@gmail.com or tweet them to @politicon.  Make sure to include your city– we love to hear where you're from! Watch James Carville Explains on YouTube Playlist James Carville & Al Hunt have launched the Politics War Room Substack Get More From Professor Pam Karlan: Stanford Law | DOJ.gov | Supreme Court Litigation Clinic Please Support Our Sponsors: 3 Day Blinds: For their buy 1 get 1 50% off deal, head to 3DayBlinds.com/warroom Washington Post: To access The Washington Post for just 50 cents per week, head to washingtonpost.com/warroom

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 ruling in the landmark case Trump v. United States, finding that the president is entitled to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts, but not for unofficial acts. In this episode, Sai Prakash of the University of Virginia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to delve into the Supreme Court's immunity decision and explore the history of presidential power and immunity from the founding to present day, and whether the Court's decision comports with the original understanding of the Constitution.     Resources:  Trump v. United States (2024)  Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)  Michael McConnell, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution (2020)  “Former Federal Judge Michael McConnell Discusses Presidential Immunity and Trump Cases with Pam Karlan,” Stanford Legal podcast   Sai Prakash,  Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive (2015)   Sai Prakash, The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers (2020)   “Does the Supreme Court ruling make the president a king? Not quite, says this Virginia law professor,” WTOP News (July 2, 2024)   Sai Prakash, Prosecuting and Punishing Our Presidents, Texas Law Review (Nov. 2021)     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.