Podcasts about Stanford Law School

In this episode, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Jan Crawford of CBS News, and Fred Smith Jr. of Stanford Law School join to explore polarization on the Court and the role of the media and the political branches in shaping public perceptions. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025) Jess Bravin and Mariah Timms, “Supreme Court Limits Rulings Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship,” The Wall Street Journal (June 27, 2025)  Jan Crawford, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for the Control of the United States Supreme Court (2007)  Fred O. Smith, Jr. and Peter O'Neill, “The Forgotten Face of ‘Our Federalism,'” The Yale Law Journal (forthcoming, 2026) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

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

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

This week's guest, Dr. Roland Vogl, is a leading voice in legal education and the legal profession. He is the Executive Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology, and a lecturer in law at Stanford Law School. Dr. Vogl also co-founded and leads CodeX, the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, where he drives cutting-edge research for the application of technology in the legal profession. In addition to his work at Stanford, Dr. Vogl serves as a visiting professor at the University of Vienna, where he teaches US intellectual property law. He is also a co-founder and board member of Merico, Inc., a platform focused on software engineering metrics. Dr. Vogl plays an active role in the legal tech ecosystem, advising legal tech and legal generative AI companies. Since 2022, he has served on the executive committee of the International Association for AI and Law. In this episode, Dr. Vogl discusses his journey from legal practice to academia, offering insights into the unique culture at Stanford Law School that helped spark the creation of CodeX. We also explore how CodeX selects its projects and how it's adapting to the transformative rise of generative AI. Read the full transcript of today's episode here: https://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/podcast_transcripts/Pioneers_Dr.RolandVogl.pdf

Yvette captures the essence of Richard Thompson Ford as a renaissance attorney whose work addresses people in everyday experiences.   Richard Ford is a professor at Stanford Law School. He has been a visiting professor at Harvard, Yale and Columbia Law Schools. He has lectured in 12 countries on five continents. He has been a practicing attorney, worked in the public sector and has written about law, social and cultural issues and race relations for The New York Times, The Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Slate, and has appeared on The Colbert Report and The Rachel Maddow Show.    He is the author of New York Times notable books and shares with Yvette his most recent book, Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History.

As Elon Musk steps away from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the chaotic legacy of his aggressive assault on federal agencies continues to reverberate throughout the government. Musk's goal — slashing $1 trillion from the federal budget — has fallen far short. At most, it has cut $31.8 billion of federal funding, a number that the Financial Times reports is “opaque and overstated.” Notably, the richest man on Earth's businesses have received a comparable amount of government funding, most of it going to SpaceX, which remains untouched by DOGE's budget ax.Stepping in to carry the torch is Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and a key architect of Project 2025, the sweeping conservative playbook to consolidate executive power. Under his stewardship, DOGE will continue its mission to dismantle the federal government from within.”Access to all of this information gives extraordinary power to the worst people,” says Mark Lemley, the director of Stanford Law School's program in law, science, and technology. Lemley is suing DOGE on behalf of federal employees for violating the Privacy Act. This week on The Intercept Briefing, Lemley and Intercept newsroom counsel and reporter Shawn Musgrave join host Jordan Uhl to take stock of the legal challenges mounting against the Trump administration's agenda. As the executive branch grows more hostile to checks on its powers, the courts remain the last, fragile line of defense. “ There have now been hundreds of court decisions on issues, some involving the Privacy Act, but a wide variety of the Trump administration's illegal activities,” says Lemley. In partnership with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and State Democracy Defenders, Lemley's suit accuses the U.S. Office of Personnel Management of violating the federal Privacy Act by handing over sensitive data to DOGE without consent or legal authority.Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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 April 30, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which examines the constitutionality of religious charter schools. In this episode, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Steven Green of Willamette University join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments, debate the meaning and history of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and survey the Court's other religion cases from this term.  Resources:  Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) Carson v. Makin (2022) Michael McConnell and Nathan S. Chapman, Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience (2023) Steven Green et al. Brief of Historians and Legal Scholars as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond   Michael McConnell et al. Brief for Amici Curiae Religious Liberty Scholars In Support of Petitioners, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission  Michael McConnell et al. Brief for Professors Douglas Laycock, Richard W. Garnett, Thomas C. Berg, Michael W. McConnell, and David M. Smolin as Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioners, Mahmoud v. Taylor  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

America's high-poverty cities and counties have suffered for decades, enduring skyrocketing inequality, the opioid epidemic, rising housing costs, and widespread disinvestment. Governments have offered a variety of failed solutions, from luring wealthy outsiders to slashing public services. But four communities are turning inward instead: Stockton, California; rural Josephine County, Oregon; Lawrence, Massachusetts; and Detroit, Michigan. In these diverse places—all of which went broke in the wake of the Great Recession—locals are building networks and trust in one another and their institutions, to promote health, wealth, and opportunity. In Stockton, this meant designing organizations to help residents cope with trauma. In Josephine County, people convinced freedom-loving, government-averse voters to increase taxes. Lawrence is building a new model to secure living wages. Detroit is battling to stabilize low-income housing. What did these strategies look and feel like on the ground? How can other struggling places borrow from their playbooks? And what can the rest of the country do to support towns as they try to help themselves? Stanford Law School's Michelle Wilde Anderson, winner of the 2023 Zócalo Book Prize for The Fight to Save the Town: Reimagining Discarded America, visits Zócalo to talk with Alberto Retana, president and CEO of South L.A.'s Community Coalition, about how a place with the odds against it can draw on historic strengths and resilient residents to thrive. Zócalo Public Square is proud to award the 2023 Zócalo Poetry Prize to Paige Buffington for her poem "From 20 Miles Outside of Gallup, Holbrook, Winslow, Farmington, or Albuquerque." The 2023 Zócalo Book and Poetry Prizes are generously sponsored by Tim Disney. Visit www.zocalopublicsquare.org/ to read our articles and learn about upcoming events. Follow along on X: twitter.com/thepublicsquare Instagram: www.instagram.com/thepublicsquare/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/zocalopublicsquare LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/z-calo-public-square

On Today's Show: To Subscribe and support the show

From January 26, 2021: Jack Goldsmith sat down with Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of the new book, "The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution." They discussed McConnell's textual historical approach to interpreting presidential power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the many novel elements of executive power embodied in Article II and the proper understanding of Article II's Vesting Clause. They also talked about contemporary implications of Michael's reading of Article II for war powers, the unitary executive and late impeachments.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the gold rush of generative AI, it seems that every legal tech vendor wants to be a one-stop shop for legal technology. But after 15 years of developing legal tech, Nik Reed, CEO of Knowable, a legal technology company devoted to helping enterprises bring order and organization to their executed agreements, believes that lawyers should be wary of the hype. Often, the most successful AI solutions are those that focus on solving specific problems exceptionally well rather than attempting to be all things to all lawyers.  On today's LawNext, Reed joins host Bob Ambrogi for a conversation that explores what makes legal AI actually work well in practice. It is a topic he has been thinking about, in one form or another, since he was still a student at Stanford Law School, where he co-founded the legal research startup Ravel with classmate Daniel Lewis in 2012. After LexisNexis acquired Ravel in 2017, Reed moved into strategic product management there, and then joined Knowable in 2019 to lead its product research and development. He became the company's CEO last November, just as the company launched Ask Knowable, its generative AI suite.  In a conversation that explores what makes legal AI actually work in practice, Reed emphasizes the critical importance of pristine data environments, high-quality metadata, and clearly defined use cases. “It's still hard to build really good products, especially for lawyers, and it takes a lot of hard work,” Reed says. “ And anyone that's telling you that that's not the truth is probably already a product that you shouldn't be using.” But ultimately, he believes, AI has the potential to restore balance to legal practice by handling the rote work lawyers never wanted to do, allowing them to return to what they went to law school for – critical reasoning and solving complex problems. Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.   Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. LEX Reception, Never miss a call, with expert answering service for Lawyers. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). SpeakWrite: Save time with fast, human-powered legal transcription—so you can focus on your practice   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

2025 will be a pivotal year for technology regulation in the United States and around the world. The European Union has begun regulating social media platforms with its Digital Services Act. In the United States, regulatory proposals at the federal level will likely include renewed efforts to repeal or reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Meanwhile, States such as Florida and Texas have tried to restrict content moderation by major platforms, but have been met with challenges to the laws' constitutionality.  On March 19, NYU Law hosted a Forum on whether it is lawful, feasible, and desirable for government actors to regulate social media platforms to reduce harmful effects on U.S. democracy and society with expert guests Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford Law School's Cyber Policy Center, and Michael Posner, Director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern School of Business. Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman, co-editors-in-chief of Just Security, moderated the event, which was co-hosted by Just Security, the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and Tech Policy Press. Show Notes: Tess Bridgeman Ryan GoodmanDaphne Keller Michael PosnerJust Security's coverage on Social Media PlatformsJust Security's coverage on Section 230Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Birth-Day O'ConnorOn this day in legal history, March 26, 1930, Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. Raised on a remote Arizona ranch, O'Connor would go on to become the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952, she struggled to find legal work due to widespread gender discrimination, eventually beginning her career in public service and Arizona state politics. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court, fulfilling a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the bench. Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate marked a historic shift in the Court's composition.O'Connor quickly established herself as a pragmatic and often pivotal swing vote, particularly in cases involving reproductive rights, federalism, and affirmative action. Her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), co-authored with Justices Kennedy and Souter, preserved the core of Roe v. Wade while allowing for more state regulation—an outcome that satisfied neither side of the debate. Critics argued that her incremental, case-by-case approach often lacked a firm constitutional foundation, leading to legal uncertainty and doctrinal ambiguity.Supporters, however, praised her moderate jurisprudence as a stabilizing force in a deeply divided Court. O'Connor was also a staunch defender of judicial independence and civics education. She retired in 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer's disease, and remained active in public life for years afterward. While her legacy is marked by both trailblazing achievement and contentious rulings, O'Connor's presence on the Court undeniably reshaped the public's perception of who belongs in the nation's highest judicial institution.President Trump signed a new executive order on Tuesday targeting the prominent law firm Jenner & Block, escalating his pattern of actions against firms involved in litigation against his administration. The order restricts the firm's access to federal contracts, security clearances, and government facilities—mirroring similar actions taken against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Trump justified the move by pointing to Jenner & Block's former employment of Andrew Weissmann, who worked on the Mueller investigation into Trump's 2016 campaign. The White House accused the firm of politicizing the legal system, while Jenner & Block denounced the order as unconstitutional and pledged to fight it.This is the fourth such order Trump has issued since returning to office in January. Jenner & Block has been active in challenging his administration in court, including blocking enforcement of a policy denying federal funds to providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and opposing efforts to restrict asylum rights. The firm also represents an environmental group suing the EPA over frozen grant funds. Many of Jenner's attorneys have ties to previous Democratic administrations and the January 6 congressional investigation.Trump's broader campaign includes a recent directive to the Justice Department to target law firms that have sued the government in recent years. Legal experts and bar associations have warned that these executive orders risk undermining the independence of the legal profession.Trump targets Jenner & Block in latest executive order aimed at law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funds its Universal Service Fund—a program that supports broadband and phone access for underserved communities. Critics argue the FCC's funding structure violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress's legislative authority, a concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. They also raise concerns under the private non-delegation doctrine, claiming the FCC unlawfully transferred power to a private entity—the Universal Service Administrative Company—to manage and determine contributions to the fund.The fund, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, collects about $9 billion annually from telecommunications providers, who often pass these costs on to consumers. A divided ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found this setup unconstitutional, citing Congress's broad delegation of authority to the FCC and the FCC's subsequent subdelegation to a private company. The court did not specifically rule on either non-delegation theory but found the overall structure breached the Constitution's assignment of legislative powers to Congress.The FCC, backed by telecom firms and public interest groups, argues that Congress provided sufficient guidance and oversight in the law and that the agency has acted within legal bounds. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has recently scaled back the reach of federal agencies in other contexts but has yet to rule directly on a major non-delegation case in decades. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality | ReutersA high-stakes race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat is shaping up to be a major political flashpoint, testing the strength of Trump's support in a swing state and attracting record-breaking spending—much of it tied to Elon Musk. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the state's top court, which is poised to rule on pivotal issues like abortion access, redistricting, labor rights, and election laws ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Trump and major outside funding, is facing off against liberal candidate Susan Crawford.Over $81 million has been poured into the race, far surpassing the previous record of $55 million in 2023. Schimel and his supporters have spent about $46 million, including $17.5 million from Musk-affiliated super PACs. Musk also personally donated $2 million to the state GOP, which quickly funneled funds to Schimel's campaign. Musk has openly warned that a liberal court majority could redraw congressional districts and shift the balance of power nationally.Crawford accused Musk and Trump of trying to install a compliant judiciary, while Schimel insisted he's made no promises to any backers. Meanwhile, Democrats criticized Musk for a potential conflict of interest, citing a Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin that may end up before the state court. Republicans countered by pointing to liberal billionaires supporting Crawford. With the court expected to rule on abortion rights, labor laws, and future election cases, this judicial race could have national implications.Wisconsin court race tests Trump's approval as Musk pours millions into campaign | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week explores why it's time to move beyond gas taxes and adopt a kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax to fund road infrastructure. As electric vehicle (EV) adoption increases, gas tax revenues are falling—undermining the traditional funding model for maintaining and expanding roads. Meanwhile, construction costs are rising, and the federal gas tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993, leaving states with a growing fiscal gap.I argue that instead of hiking gas taxes on a shrinking pool of internal combustion drivers or cutting infrastructure budgets, states should issue bonds to build out public EV charging networks. These investments could be repaid through a kWh tax on public charging—a fee that would be closely tied to actual road usage. This approach would be more proportional and transparent than flat EV registration fees or invasive mileage-tracking programs.Unlike a gas tax, which is loosely connected to how much someone drives, a kWh tax—especially if tiered by charging speed—would more accurately reflect miles traveled and wear on the roads. It also avoids privacy issues and technological complexity. Drivers charging at home could remain exempt, just as today's drivers can choose where to fuel up.Ultimately, I propose this as a modern, fair way to ensure EV drivers contribute to the roads they use, while giving states the tools to build the infrastructure needed for a successful transition.It's Time To Replace Gas Taxes With A Kilowatt Tax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Did you know that some school districts have been trying to ban Crocs? We're diving into the history and current application of dress codes in this episode of “Something Offbeat” with Grace Goble, an actor, singer, playwright, and more who changed her school's dress code and Richard Thompson Ford, the George E. Osborne Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and author of Dress Codes: how the laws of fashion made history.

In this episode, Avanish and Dennis discuss:How Freshworks evolved from a single help desk product to a multi-product platform serving 74,000 customers globally, from small businesses to enterprises like Airbus and Nucor SteelThe importance of being "pulled" by customers into new markets rather than pushing—recognizing when customers you didn't expect are adopting your productsThe challenges of building and scaling a multi-product company where products are at different maturity levels and target slightly different ICPsWhy ecosystem strategy is critical at Freshworks, including both technology integrations with thousands of partners and a services ecosystem to source and implement solutionsFreshworks' differentiated approach of building "uncomplicated" solutions in a market dominated by complexity—particularly for mid-market and low-enterprise customers (up to 20,000 employees)Dennis's philosophy of customer-centricity: "When in doubt, go talk to a customer"Building an ecosystem strategy that includes both technology integrations with thousands of partners and a global services network, with direct sales in nine countries and partner-led expansion everywhere elseAbout the HostAvanish Sahai is a Tidemark Fellow and has served as a Board Member of Hubspot since April 2018 and of Birdie.ai since April 2022. Previously, Avanish served as the vice president, ISV and Apps partner ecosystem of Google from 2019 until 2021. From 2016 to 2019, he served as the global vice president, ISV and Technology alliances at ServiceNow.  From 2014 to 2015, he was the senior vice president and chief product officer at Demandbase.  Prior to Demandbase, Avanish built and led the Appexchange platform ecosystem team at Salesforce, and was an executive at Oracle and McKinsey & Company, as well as various early-to-mid stage startups in Silicon Valley.About Dennis WoodsideDennis Woodside is the CEO and President of Freshworks. He joined Freshworks as President in 2022. Dennis has spent more than two decades at innovative companies in Silicon Valley. Previous roles include Chief Operating Officer of Dropbox and sales and strategy leadership roles at Google for more than 10 years, including CEO of Motorola Mobility after Google acquired the company.Dennis serves on the board of the Boys & Girls Club of the Peninsula in California and previously served on the boards of the American Red Cross and ServiceNow. Dennis holds a B.S. in Industrial Relations from Cornell University and a J.D. from Stanford Law School.About FreshworksFreshworks Inc. (NASDAQ: FRSH) provides people-first AI service software that organizations use to deliver exceptional customer and employee experiences. More than 72,000 companies, including American Express, Bridgestone, Databricks, Fila, Nucor, and Sony choose Freshworks' uncomplicated solutions to increase efficiency and loyalty. For the latest company news and customer stories, visit www.freshworks.com and follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and X.About TidemarkTidemark is a venture capital firm, foundation, and community built to serve category-leading technology companies as they scale.  Tidemark was founded in 2021 by David Yuan, who has been investing, advising, and building technology companies for over 20 years.  Learn more at www.tidemarkcap.com.LinksFollow our guest, Dennis WoodsideFollow our host, Avanish SahaiLearn more about Tidemark

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

With a Republican Congress apparently unwilling to check Trump's power, many Americans fear a looming constitutional crisis and are looking to the federal courts to ride to the rescue. But political scientist and Harvard Kennedy School Professor Maya Sen, who studies the federal judiciary, says the cavalry probably isn't coming. The Trump administration has seemingly defied judicial orders on deportations, withholding congressionally appropriated funds for federal programs, eliminating birthright citizenship, and other issues. Meanwhile, surrogates like Vice President J.D. Vance and billionaire Elon Musk have stated in social media posts that Trump is simply not bound by judicial decisions and can do pretty much whatever he pleases. Trump has even joined with some of his political supporters calling for impeachment of judges who rule against him, prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to respond and call Trump's statement “inappropriate.” With the legislative branch of government sitting on the sidelines and without a credible threat of impeachment, Sen says the judiciary is no match for an authoritarian executive in terms of speed of action and political muscle—and was never intended to be. And even if it had been, structural issues with the way decisions are made and how judges are chosen give conservatives an advantage, and have resulted in a Supreme Court that is largely out of step with public opinion. Sen talks with PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli about what can be done to restore both the separation of powers and the balance of power in the U.S. government during this unprecedented pivotal moment in American history.Maya Sen's Policy Recommendations:Pass a constitutional amendment to end lifetime appointments and limit terms for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to 18 years to help depoliticize the process of judicial selection.Exert public and electoral pressure on Congress and political leaders to defend the legislative branch's constitutional prerogatives and to stop ceding power to the executive branch.Episode Notes:Maya Sen is a political scientist whose interests include law, political economy, race and ethnic politics, and statistical methods. She has testified before Congress and presidential commissions on issues pertaining to the federal courts, and her research has been published in numerous academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and The Journal of Politics. . Her writings also include the books “The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary,” and “Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics,” which won the 2019 William H. Riker Book Award for best book published in political economy. She is currently working on a book on the relationship between the Supreme Court and public opinion. Professor Sen earned a PhD from the Department of Government at Harvard University in 2012 and holds an AM in Statistics and an AB in Economics, both from Harvard University, as well as a JD from Stanford Law School.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina. Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team. 

Kate Huddleston, senior legal counsel of litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has acted lawfully in firing federal workers and freezing federal spending.  Resources Campaign Legal Center, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (March 3, 2025)  Michael McConnell and Laurence Tribe, “Is Musk's DOGE Dodging the Law?,” Open to Debate (March 7, 2025)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Featuring:Prof. Sadie Blanchard, "Adjudicating ESG Reputation," Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Benjamin Chen, "What are Linguistic Canons for?," Associate Professor, University of Hong Kong Faculty of LawProf. Robert Leider, "The Individual Right to Bear Arms for Common Defense," Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Tyler Lindley, "Reconstructing Section 1983," Associate Professor, Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law SchoolMr. Luke Schumacher, “A Council of Grand Strategists: The Original Hope, Fear, and Intent of the U.S. Senate in Foreign Affairs,” J.D. Candidate, Stanford Law School and Ph.D Candidate, University of Virginia Department of PoliticsCommenter: Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolCommenter: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawCommenter: Prof. Robert Miller, F. Arnold Daum Chair in Corporate Finance and Law, University of Iowa College of LawCommenter: Prof. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawCommenter: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Christina Mulligan, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

Show Notes: Michael T. Johnson, a lawyer, shares his experiences during his freshman year at Stanford Law School. He initially wanted to pursue transactional work in finance and looked at New York but later realized that he wanted to return to New Orleans and work there. He stayed long-term in New Orleans and work for companies in the area. From a Law Firm to the Oil Industry He spent three years working at Jones Walker, a large law firm in New Orleans. However, after joining the firm, all but one associate left, leading to a split off in the firm and a lot of extra responsibility for Michael. This experience was challenging, but it allowed him to learn and specialize in public company work and mergers. Michael was then hired to do an IPO for Omni Energy Services, a company that drills holes in the ground to find oil deposits. The technology is now advanced enough that they can read 3D seismic imaging to find oil deposits. Michael was excited about the business aspect of the industry and wanted to be on the other side of deals. He talks about his time there and how he was offered the opportunity to document investments. The Move to Advantage Capital Michael talks about Advantage Capital, which started as a way to drive capital to underserved states, such as Louisiana, which had been redlined due to corruption and oil and gas booms. The program was created by Harvard economist Beldon Daniels, who was hired by the legislature to give tax credits to insurance companies for investing with funds that agreed to invest in small businesses in the state. Steven Stull, an insurance company portfolio manager, founded Advantage after being approached by a dealmaker. He believed he could create a business around structured financial products, such as selling tax credit bonds to insurance companies. Stull was also involved in public policy and advocacy work, advocating for the adoption of these programs. All of the above lined up with Michael's dream job. He gravitated towards the advocacy and structuring side of the business, spending most of his time in New Orleans. The New Markets Tax Credit Program Michael looks back to 2002 when the New Markets Tax Credit Program was adopted by the Clinton Administration, aiming to bring success from the dotcom boom to urban and rural areas. The program was initially praised by the Federal Reserve, but the Bush administration pushed it further and made it more business-friendly. They team decided to pursue this program, which was 100% focused on low-income community investing. The New Markets Tax Credit Program was a business-friendly initiative that aimed to capitalize on the success of the dotcom boom in California and New York. Michael and his team were able to successfully implement the program, focusing on low-income community investing.  Michael discusses the company's competitive application process for investment grants, which grade applicants based on their track record of investing capital in targeted areas, raising money from investors using tax credits and incentives, and investing in low-income communities. They analyze their portfolio and find that they have been investing about 30% of their money in low-income communities, particularly in states like Louisiana. They were one of the largest allocatees in the first round of awards in 2003 and have been winners 15 times. The Shift from a Venture Firm to an Impact Investment Firm Michael explains that they initially focused on raising money as a venture firm, but later transitioned to an impact investment firm. They now focus on creating jobs and creating job opportunities for residents in their communities. They have been doing federal new markets for 20 years and have state versions that can be added on to them. They try to marry programs together to bring the best of certain programs to each other that work for their investors and spin them out. He also mentions his counterpart, Scott Murphy, who manages the investment side and handles the structuring and bringing in the money. They have been together since 2001 and have been working together since 2001. The mission of the company is to invest in businesses that produce more jobs in the region. The decision-making process involves focusing on companies that produce more jobs at the margin. The company does not specialize in any specific area, as they have tight time frames to qualify for incentives. They have to be generalists, investing in various investment types and being generalists on the balance sheet. The company's goal is to invest in businesses that create jobs and contribute to the region's economy. The company also specializes in incentives and tax credits, having been involved in federal, federal, and state Low Income Housing Tax Credit deals and renewable energy deals. Building a Life in New Orleans Michael reflects on his family's presence in New Orleans, which has been a significant part of his life. He recalls dragging people to Mardi Gras from Harvard and being invited to do so every year. However, he also had a strong desire to run for office and work in the Public Service sector, but eventually decided against it. At Advantage, he focused on economic development and was involved in policy discussions with economic development groups. He was getting the idea of what he could do for his city through Metro vision trips and talking to investors. However, he was not well off enough to run for state representative, and his boss initially dismissed his idea. Michael also touches on the impact of Katrina on their business, which was not New Orleans-centric. They moved their office to St. Louis, where they worked on a new markets application. After Katrina, the Treasury Department extended an extension for applicants to work in other areas. Five or six of the team members from St. Lewis rewrote the application to use new markets to rebuild New Orleans. He acknowledges that living in New Orleans was a difficult decision due to its unique personality and uniqueness. They had to make a decision about where to go if they couldn't return, as it was a unique place with a unique personality. However, they were able to be dispassionate about the situation and were called in to DC to discuss using incentives programs to speed up rebuilding. Influential Harvard Professors and Courses Michael, a classics major, took many courses and professors that resonated with him, such as EC 10, Micro, Macro Economics, and the American Revolution. These classes helped him understand the real political and economic pressures of the time and made him think critically. Timestamps: 02:14: Returning to New Orleans  09:36: Transition to Advantage Capital  09:49: Advantage Capital's Focus on Impact Investing  27:06: Impact of Katrina and Advantage Capital's Role  28:01: Personal Life and Family in New Orleans  35:35: Michael's Podcast and Community Involvement 38:11: Reflections on Harvard Education 48:56: Advantage Capital's Investment Strategy  49:17: Successful Investments and Impact Stories  Links: Website: https://www.advantagecap.com/ Michael's podcast: https://jesuitjourneys.com/   Featured Non-profit: The featured non-profit of this episode of The 92 Report is Senior Tech  recommended by Ruthie Tanenbaum who reports: “Hi. I'm Ruthie Tanenbaum Friedman, class of 1992 the featured nonprofit of this episode of The 92 report is Senior Tech. Senior Tech provides free technology support to senior citizens, which is offered by volunteer high school students. The organization is based in Florida with plans to grow and offers in person and remote support. My children founded and run the organization with my son Max, now serving as president and expanding the services that the organization provides. You can learn more about their work@seniortech.org and now here is Will Bachman with this week's episode.” To learn more about their work visit: SeniorTech.org.

Join the conversation by letting us know what you think about the episode!Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, poverty continues to be a seemingly unsolvable issue in the United States. But is it really unsolvable? This week's guest, Devon Gray, argues that poverty is a problem that can be solved. In this episode, we speak with Devon about possible solutions that could put an end to poverty. Devon Gray is the president of EPIC (End Poverty in California) which aims to end poverty in California by elevating the voices of people experiencing it, creating and implementing bold policies rooted in their needs, and advancing a state agenda focused on equal opportunity for all. Prior to joining EPIC, Devon was a director with Evergreen Strategy Group, where he advised gun violence prevention organizations on policy and strategy. Devon previously served in the Newsom Administration as Special Advisor to the Governor's Chief of Staff and is an alumnus of national and statewide political campaigns. He is a graduate of Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Education. Devon lives in Orange County where he serves as a delegate to the California Democratic Party.Mentioned in this episode:A Blueprint for a Just and Inclusive Economy - policy-paper.pdfWhere to find Devon Gray and EPIC:Instagram: @devonjgray @endpovertycaTwitter/X: @devongrayca @endpovertycaLinkedIn: @devonjgray @endpovertycaWebsite: endpovertyinca.orgSupport the showBe part of the conversation by sharing your thoughts about this episode, what you may have learned, how the conversation affected you. You can reach Raquel and Jennifer on IG @madnesscafepodcast or by email at madnesscafepodcast@gmail.com.Share the episode with a friend and have your own conversation. And don't forget to rate and review the show wherever you listen!Thanks!

Stanford Law School professor Pamela S. Karlan, an expert on voting and the political process and a former UVA Law professor, delivers the McCorkle Lecture. (University of Virginia School of Law, Feb. 24, 2025)

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of Luke Liss and the host, and do not represent the views of any referenced organizations.   Join us for a powerful conversation with Luke Liss, Pro Bono Partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, as he shares his inspiring journey from adversity to advocacy.  Episode 170 delves into Luke's personal experiences as a biracial (Black and White) adoptee, his path to becoming a social justice leader, and his vision for pro bono work.   Luke opens up about the impact of his unique background on his sense of belonging and purpose. He recounts his challenges, including almost dropping out of high school, and how he overcame them to graduate from Stanford Law School.  He emphasizes the crucial role of mentorship in his success and shares insights on fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace that goes beyond mere compliance.   This episode explores:   Overcoming adversity: Luke's story of resilience and how he transformed challenges into motivation. The impact of adoption and racial identity: Luke's reflections on his personal journey as a biracial adoptee and its influence on his advocacy work. The power of mentorship: How early mentorship shaped his path to success and the importance of finding mentors. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in action: Practical strategies for creating inclusive environments that uplift everyone. Advocating for marginalized communities: Insights into supporting asylum seekers and immigrants, and how to advocate for change. Pro bono and social justice leadership: Luke's journey to becoming Pro Bono Partner at a top Am Law 50 law firm and his passion for social justice. Career development and leadership: Tips for positioning yourself for leadership roles and confidently asking for what you deserve. Immigration law and advocacy: The challenges and rewards of working in immigration law, especially in the face of political uncertainty. Finding hope and joy in challenging times: Strategies for maintaining resilience and finding purpose amidst uncertainty.   Tune in to hear Luke's remarkable story of resilience, leadership, and advocacy, and gain valuable insights on making a difference in the world.   Connect with us: Connect with Luke at https://www.linkedin.com/in/luke-liss-a461907/ and https://www.wsgr.com/en/people/luke-a-liss.html.  Follow Luke's work on Instagram at @wsgives or https://www.instagram.com/wsgives/ and on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/wsgives/posts/?feedView=all.   Follow Samorn on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/samornselim/. Get a copy of Samorn's book, “Belonging: Self Love Lessons From A Workaholic Depressed Insomniac Lawyer” at https://tinyurl.com/2dk5hr2f.  Get weekly career tips by signing up for our advice column at www.careerunicorns.com.  Schedule a free 30-minute build your dream career consult by sending a message at www.careerunicorns.com.   

Ten years ago, political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern took an extraordinary data set compiled by Gilens and a small army of researchers and set out to determine whether America could still credibly call itself a democracy. They used case studies 1,800 policy proposals over 30 years, tracking how they made their way through the political system and whose interests were served by outcomes. For small D democrats, the results were devastating. Political outcomes overwhelmingly favored very wealthy people, corporations, and business groups. The influence of ordinary citizens, meanwhile, was at a “non-significant, near-zero level.” America, they concluded, was not a democracy at all, but a functional oligarchy.  Fast forward to 2024 and a presidential campaign that saw record support by billionaires for both candidates, but most conspicuously for Republican candidate Donald Trump from Tesla and Starlink owner Elon Musk, the world's richest man. That prompted outgoing President Joe Biden, in his farewell address, to warn Americans about impending oligarchy—something Gilens and Page said was already a fait accompli ten years before. And as if on cue, the new president put billionaire tech bro supporters like Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg front and center at his inauguration and has given Musk previously unimaginable power to dismantle and reshape the federal government through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. So what does it mean that American oligarchy is now so brazenly out in the open?  Joining host Ralph Ranalli are Harvard Kennedy School Professor Archon Fung and Harvard Law School Professor Larry Lessig, who say it could an inflection point that will force Americans to finally confront the country's trend toward rule by the wealthy, but that it's by no means certain that that direction can be changed anytime soon. Archon Fung is a democratic theorist and faculty director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at HKS. Larry Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School and a 2016 presidential candidate whose central campaign theme was ridding politics of the corrupting influence of money. Archon Fung's Policy Recommendations:Involve the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in monitoring executive orders and changes to the federal government being made by President Trump, Elon Musk, and other Trump proxies.Demand transparency from Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency about their actions in federal agencies, what changes and modifications they are making to systems, and an accounting of what information they have access to.Lawrence Lessig's Policy Recommendations:Build support for a test court case to overturn the legality of Super PACs, which are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.Experiment with alternative campaign funding mechanisms, such as a voucher program that would give individuals public money that they could pledge to political candidates.Urge Democratic Party leaders to lead by example and outlaw Super PAC participation in Democratic primaries.Episode Notes:Archon Fung is the Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government and director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Kennedy School. at the Harvard Kennedy School. His research explores policies, practices, and institutional designs that deepen the quality of democratic governance. He focuses upon public participation, deliberation, and transparency. His books include “Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency” (Cambridge University Press, with Mary Graham and David Weil) and “Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy” (Princeton University Press). He has authored five books, four edited collections, and over fifty articles appearing in professional journals. He holds two S.B.s — in philosophy and physics — and a Ph.D. in political science from MIT.Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. Prior to returning to Harvard, he taught at Stanford Law School, where he founded the Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lessig is the founder of Equal Citizens and a founding board member of Creative Commons, and serves on the Scientific Board of AXA Research Fund. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, he was once cited by The New Yorker as “the most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era,” Lessig has turned his focus from law and technology to institutional corruption and the corrupting influence of money on democracy, which led to his entering the 2016 Democratic primary for president. He has written 11 books, including “They Don't Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy” in 2019. He holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge University, and a JD from Yale.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lillian Wainaina.Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team.  

The Hoover Institution held an event titled, "India's Policy Landscape: Insights from the Survey of India," on Tuesday, January 28th, 2025, at 12 p.m. PT in the Annenberg Conference Room, George P. Shultz Building, and online (via Zoom). This event discussed India's current policy landscape, using the Hoover Institution's inaugural edition of the Survey of India as a foundation for the discussion. The Survey of India is a comprehensive volume that provides an overview of developments in India across various policy arenas, including foreign policy, demography, economics, and education. Each of its eight chapters offers a panoramic view and an authoritative account of specific policy issues that are collectively shaping India's trajectory. ​ FEATURING - Šumit Ganguly, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Director of the Huntington Program on Strengthening the US-India Relationship. - Jack A. Goldstone, Virginia E. and John T. Hazel, Jr. Chair Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University. - Dinsha Mistree, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Research Affiliate at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and at the Neukom Center for the Rule of Law at Stanford Law School. - Nirvikar Singh, Co-Director of the Center for Analytical Finance at UCSC and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Economics, Management and Religion.

Divided Argument is live from Stanford Law School, hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center! We review an unusual summary reversal in a capital habeas case and the latest universal injunction developments, and discuss some of the implications of the change in administration. After that, we are joined by a very special guest to discuss the recent arguments in the excessive force case of Barnes v. Felix.

Joining us on this special fifth-anniversary episode of Living Off Rentals is an attorney with over 15 years of experience helping high-net-worth individuals protect their assets and grow their wealth.  Glenn Truitt is the co-founder of Private Wealth Law, where he focuses on everything from Mergers and Acquisitions to Corporate Governance and Asset Protection.  Born in the suburbs of Chicago and growing up in Denver, Glenn is a proud graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (graduating 8th in his class) and served as a Ballistic Missile Submarine Officer in the Navy before earning his law degree from Stanford Law School.  In this episode, Glenn breaks down the corporate governance strategies that real estate investors need to know. From choosing the right LLC structure to understanding Series LLCs and Family Limited Partnerships, Glenn shares tips to help you reduce your risk while saving time and money in the long run. If you're serious about protecting your investments, this is an episode you don't want to miss. Listen and enjoy the show! Key Takeaways: [03:10] Introducing Glenn Truitt and his background [08:40] Common Misconceptions for Business Law for Real Estate Investors [15:56] About piercing in real estate [25:11] Series LLC vs Individual [36:37] Glenn's recommendations on the best way to partner in business [42:00] Unsaid expectations, pre-planned problems [48:18] Family Limited Partnership (FLP) [54:33] Connect with Glenn Guest Links: Website: https://privatewealthlawinc.com/  Email: gtruitt@privatewealthlawinc.com The ABCs of LLCs: https://privatewealthlawinc.com/insights/#papers  Show Links: Living Off Rentals YouTube Channel – youtube.com/c/LivingOffRentals  Living Off Rentals YouTube Podcast Channel - youtube.com/c/LivingOffRentalsPodcast  Living Off Rentals Facebook Group – facebook.com/groups/livingoffrentals  Living Off Rentals Website – https://www.livingoffrentals.com/  Living Off Rentals Instagram – instagram.com/livingoffrentals  Living Off Rentals TikTok – tiktok.com/@livingoffrentals   

After seeing someone make an illegal left turn, Mike joked to his daughter that they should do a citizen's arrest. She had no idea what he was talking about, and now Mike wants to know: wait, are citizen's arrests actually a real-life thing, or just something he saw on TV? And if they are real, how do they work? And what do they say about crime and policing in our country? This week on Explain It to Me, host Jonquilyn Hill talks to Stanford Law School professor David Sklansky to find out. He's the author of the new book Criminal Justice in Divided America. We want to know what's on your mind! Call us at 1-800-618-8545 and leave us a voicemail with your name and your question — we may answer it in a future episode. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Patrick Boyd, engineer Kim Eggleston, fact checker Carla Javier, supervising producer Jorge Just, editor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

(0:00) Intro(2:06) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel(2:53) Start of interview. *Reference to prior episodes with Joe (E1 from '20, E35 from '21, E84 from '23, E123 from '24)(4:53) The future of the SEC with Chairman Paul Atkins (6:30) New approach to crypto by SEC(9:40) On the politicization of corporate governance(10:48) On the future of ESG ("Extremely Subjective Guessing") and DEI ("Decrease Emphasis Immediately")(14:18) On DOGE, and how it plays out(17:13) On the influence of Silicon Valley in the new Trump Administration(21:40) On Delaware's Corporate Landscape (two canaries in the coalmine: pre-IPO incorporations and re-domestications)(25:01) On the Tornetta v Musk case, and challenging the award of $345 million in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs(28:54) AI and the malpractice insurance system. "How AI eats the world"(32:52) On OpenAI's structure and PBCs. On "exit tax" from converting from non-profit to for-profit.(36:49) How do corporations relate to (an increasingly polarized) society: big theme for 2025.(38:05) Biggest winner and loser in business in 2024(40:38) Biggest business surprise in 2024 (42:46) Best and worst corporate governance trend from 2024(43:05) What's the biggest corporate governance trend to watch out for in 2025Joe Grundfest is the William A. Franke Professor of Law and Business Emeritus at Stanford Law School and Senior Faculty at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance. You can follow Evan on social media at:X: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Jack Goldsmith sits down with Orin Kerr, a Professor at Stanford Law School, to discuss his new book, “The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World.” They talk about how Kerr became interested in these issues, the history and physicality assumptions of the Fourth Amendment, and how and why the digital world is different. They also discuss how the courts are interpreting the Fourth Amendment in a digital age, as well as Kerr's Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory, the core theory of the book.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Lawrence Lessig, Prof. of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, formerly professor at Stanford Law School, former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and author of numerous books and articles on democracy and its accelerating decline, spoke with Ruth and occasional co-host James Moore on money's corrupting influence over our democracy and what we as individuals and as a nation can do about it.

As Elon Musk continues to plot, with Trumpian glee, against the American Federal government, it is important to remind ourselves of the essential value of this state bureaucracy. As the founding president and CEO of the Washington DC based Partnership for Public Service, Max Stier has spent the last quarter century focused on making American government more efficient and accountable. And Stier's warning about the incoming administration is critically important. Yes, he acknowledges, some of Musk's misgivings about the inefficiencies of the Federal bureaucracy are fair, but that isn't an excuse for a descent into what Stier describes as the patrimonial politics of MAGA in which the interests of Trump and of the American state are treated identically. The American Republic was founded against the 18th century absolutist conceit that L'État, c'est moi. So all Max Stier is doing, at the Partnership for Public Service, is defending the values of the Founders who, wanted to protect the Republic from a patrimonial state.Max Stier is the founding president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Under his leadership, the Partnership has been widely praised as a first-class nonprofit organization and thought leader on federal government management issues. Max has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government. In 1982, he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim Leach. Max clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 and clerked for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in 1994. Between these two positions, Max served as Special Litigation Counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman at the Department of Justice. In 1995, Max joined the law firm of Williams & Connolly where he practiced primarily in the area of white collar defense. Max comes most recently from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, having served as the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School, Max is a member of the Inaugural Advisory Council of the National Institute of Social Sciences, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States and the National Advisory Board for Public Service at Harvard College.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Corporate practice of medicine laws are on the books, but the loopholes are widening and seemingly endless. Does legislation work? Or will CPOM forever find a work-around?  To help sort this out, Matt and Wendy get wonky with Hayden Rooke-Ley, a federal judicial law clerk, a recent graduate of Stanford Law School, and Senior Fellow for Healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project.

Solar siting, the future of hydroelectric dams, and grid transmission buildout have been some of the most contentious and important areas needing attention as the U.S. builds out the electric grid of tomorrow. In this episode of Grid Talk, host Marty Rosenberg interviews Dan Reicher who is a former Assistant Secretary of Energy and is associated with the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, as well as Dartmouth's Irving Institute for Energy and Society.The discussion centers on a program at Stanford called Uncommon Dialogues which aims to sort out divisive issues and make progress solving them.“I started to look into this Uncommon Dialogue program, and I was really quite intrigued given the difficulties we have in resolving some of today's big energy, climate and environmental issues,” said Reicher.The idea is to get opposing parties together at least once and see if there's any interest in really trying to resolve some of their big differences.“I think we've got a good process, and we've tested it now in both hydropower and big solar, and I think it could work well on a lot of other issues. We got some of the biggest solar developers in the United States to sit down with some of the big environmental groups including The Nature Conservancy, the largest U.S. conservation group, and with tribal representatives and a whole host of others.”The result was the groups bought in on an agreement about how to proceed.“We've been moving forward ever since to really try to improve the way we site, operate, and transmit the power from these big solar projects, often measured in the hundreds and hundreds of megawatts and some of them approaching 1,000 megawatts.”Dan Reicher is a former Assistant Secretary of Energy in the Clinton Administration. Mr. Reicher is currently attached to the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. Mr. Reicher joined Stanford in 2011 as the executive director of Stanford's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance. Before joining Stanford, he was the Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives at Google.Mr. Reicher holds a B.A. in biology from Dartmouth College and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. 

Neil Devani, founder of Necessary Ventures, shares his journey from healthcare and healthcare policy to venture capital, focusing on mission-driven startups tackling societal challenges. He discusses his investment strategy, offering insights into evaluating startups for transformative potential, talent retention, capital efficiency, and impactful storytelling. Neil highlights the importance of customer empathy and avoiding gratuitous technology. He also advocates for quality over speed during venture deals, emphasizing the importance of long-term founder-VC alignment. With a thoughtful approach to impact and innovation, Neil provides actionable advice for navigating the VC landscape.In this episode, you'll learn:[01:49] How Neil's early frustrations with the U.S. healthcare system inspired a desire to address systemic issues through technology and startups.[08:43] Creating Necessary Ventures with a mission to invest in companies addressing major societal challenges with innovative solutions.[11:38] Necessary Ventures investment strategy and philosophy: Mission-driven companies are prioritized for their competitive advantages in talent retention, capital efficiency, and market visibility.[14:37] The importance of avoiding "gratuitous" uses of technology and focusing on practical, impactful applications.[19:33] Speed vs. quality in venture capital: Prioritize long-term founder/VC alignment over short-term funding speed.[23:13] Have deep customer empathy and offer a solution providing transformative value to win over investors.[28:48] The future of Necessary Ventures: Fostering a unique approach to creating and measuring impact and value-add to startups.The non-profit organization Neil is passionate about: UpsolveAbout Neil DevaniNeil Devani is the founder and managing partner of Necessary Ventures, where he prioritizes investments in companies tackling complex challenges, particularly in healthcare, financial services, and education. His portfolio also includes startups in emerging technologies such as machine learning and robotics. Beyond investing, Neil serves as an advisor to various companies, nonprofits, and venture funds. He holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School, attended medical school at Drexel University, and earned a B.S. from Pennsylvania State University.About Necessary VenturesNecessary Ventures is a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm specializing in seed to early-stage investments in AI, healthcare, and machine learning. The firm focuses primarily on companies in North America and Europe, with a particular emphasis on San Francisco, London, and New York. Its portfolio includes companies such as Plural Energy, Unlearn.AI, Readout AI, Magrathea, Rubi Laboratories, and Mooch, among others.Subscribe to our podcast and stay tuned for our next episode.

In this episode, Catherine Sandoval, Santa Clara University Law Professor and Patrick Lanthier, co-founder of RIVERA/LANTHIER & Associates talk with the UC Riverside School of Public Policy about how social vulnerabilities and the digital divide shape disaster response outcomes. This is the fourth episode in our 11-part series, Technology vs. Government, featuring former California State Assemblymember Lloyd Levine. Thank you so much to our generous sponsor for this episode, the Wall Street Journal. Activate your free school-sponsored subscription today at: ⁠WSJ.com/UCRiverside⁠ About Catherine Sandoval: Catherine Sandoval is a tenured Law Professor at Santa Clara University, specializing in Communications and Energy law. She served in the US federal government as a Presidential-nominated, Senate Confirmed Board Member of the US Chemical Safety Board, and as Director of the FCC Office of Communications Business Opportunities. California Governors Brown and Davis appointed her as Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission, and Undersecretary of California's Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, She earned a B.A. from Yale University, a Master of Letters from Oxford University where she was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. Learn more about Catherine Sandoval via  ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-sandoval-7a2a2416a/⁠ About Patrick Lanthier: Patrick Lanthier co-founded RIVERA/LANTHIER & Associates, a Silicon Valley-based technology and policy firm in 1997. At AT&T & BELL Labs, he was on early Cellular, Internet, and National Security & Emergency Preparedness teams. He co-founded New Ventures (total $1B) and advises 22 countries' Emergency Communications Planners, the United Nations, the European Union, and the US Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State. He advised at Carnegie Mellon University, Santa Clara University, and both California's Emerging Technology Fund and its Office of Emergency Services. He has led teams in more than 50 countries. His education includes California Polytechnic, San Francisco State, Golden Gate, Seton Hall, and The Wharton School. He testified in the US Congress and other venues. Learn more about Patrick Lanthier via  ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-lanthier-6ba8068/⁠ Interviewers: Lloyd Levine (Former California State Assemblymember, UCR School of Public Policy Senior Policy Fellow) Rachel Strausman (UCR Public Policy Major, Dean's Chief Ambassador) Music by: Vir Sinha Commercial Links:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/ba-mpp⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/mpp⁠⁠⁠⁠  This is a production of the UCR School of Public Policy: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/⁠⁠⁠⁠  Subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss an episode. Learn more about the series and other episodes via ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

Land Back is an Indigenous-led movement focused on returning land to Indigenous Tribes in a way that strengthens Indigenous sovereignty and communities. This episode features a discussion about how Land Back comes up in the context of estate planning and introduces key concepts for estate planners, financial advisors, and tax advisors to assist clients in taking suchaction.About Our Guests:Alma Soongi Beck is an attorney in  Lathrop GPM Private Client Services Practice Groups. Beck is certified as a specialist in estate planning, trust, and probate law by the State Board of Legal Specialization, and her practice focuses on trusts, charitable planning, gift and estate tax planning, and post-death administration including trust administration and probate. She speaks regularly on estate planning issues affecting LGBTQ+ and unmarried couples, on the evolution of gender and parentage in estate planning and administration, and on Land Back to Indigenous Tribes. She has previously served on the boards of the Transgender Law Center, Our Family Coalition, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF) and the Korean American Bar Association of Northern California (KABANC). Prior to joining Lathrop GPM (formerly Hopkins & Carley), Alma was a partner at Lakin Spears, LLP, as well as founder and principal attorney for The Beck Law Group, P.C. A Korean American child of immigrants, Beck had led workshops on implicit bias for legal professionals, college students, and climate organizations since the 1990s, most recently for the Climate Reality Project Bay Area Chapter. Jo Carrillo JD/JSD is Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Indigenous Law Center (ILC) at UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings). For over three decades, Carrillo has taught and written extensively in property and property-related subjects, including Federal Indian Law. Carrillo earned her BA from Stanford University, her JD from the University of New Mexico, and her JSD from Stanford Law School. She is a member of the Order of the Coif, the American Law Institute, and a former Trustee of the Law & Society Association; she was aVisiting Scholar at The Center for the Study of Law & Society at UC Berkeley Law, and a Visiting Professor at Stanford Law School. As Faculty Director of the UC Law Indigenous Law Center, Carrillo facilitates a seminar series called Law &. This series brings lawyers, students, and California Tribal leaders into the law school classroom to discuss land back and land stewardship issues. Recently, again with assistance from the Resources Legacy Fund, Carrillo has undertaken to study land back transfer documents. Carrillo has served on the UC Law SF Legacy Committee. She now serves on the UC Law SF Restorative Justice Advisory Board, which counsels UC Law SF Chancellor and Dean David Faigman on decanal initiated restorative justice efforts for Indigenous communities in California. As a long-term project, Carrillo is co-editing a volume, with UCLA Professor of History Benjamin Madley, on redressing 19 th century state sponsored harms against California Indigenous Peoples..About Our Host:Erika Gasaway is a trust and estate litigation partner who was fomerly with Hopkins Carley, which is now LathropGPM. She is on the nationwide Private Client Services team and co-chairs the Trust & Estate Litigation Task Force. She is based in San Jose, California where she represents ultra-high and high net worth families, fiduciaries, and family offices to resolve disputes as various phases of their life cycles. Erika is a member of the California Lawyer's Association Trust and Estate Section's Executive Committee (“TEXCOM”).Thank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Todd Gajdusek and Cat Hammons

This week, we are happy to welcome author and podcaster, Nick Halaris to The Hamilton Review Podcast! Nick Halaris is the author of Profit+, a popular newsletter read by over 20,000 mission-driven individuals, and the host of the Nick Halaris Show, a podcast dedicated to sharing the stories of the people who are trying to make the world a better place.  Every week, Nick publishes articles in Profit+ designed to help people pursue success without compromise and sits down with well-known socially conscious entrepreneurs and investors, non-profit leaders, civic activists, political leaders, and authors to explore, highlight, and champion the ideas, projects, and missions of the world's most inspiring people. Nick has spent the last 15 years as a real estate entrepreneur and has invested in over $300M worth of properties.  He is a co-founder and the President of Metros Capital, a design-centric residential development firm based in West Hollywood, and has a track record that includes investing and developing over 2,500 multifamily units and 150 homes.   He holds a Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Michigan.  Nick resides in West Hollywood with his family and enjoys writing, extreme fitness, helping entrepreneurs, and giving back to the community.    Enjoy this engaging and informative conversation!   How to contact Nick Halaris:   Nick Halaris website and newletter (sign up!)   Nick Halaris on Instagram   Nick Halaris on linkedin   Nick Halaris on Twitter   How to contact Dr. Bob: Dr. Bob on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChztMVtPCLJkiXvv7H5tpDQ Dr. Bob on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drroberthamilton/ Dr. Bob on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bob.hamilton.1656 Dr. Bob's Seven Secrets Of The Newborn website: https://7secretsofthenewborn.com/ Dr. Bob's website: https://roberthamiltonmd.com/ Pacific Ocean Pediatrics: http://www.pacificoceanpediatrics.com/  

Our guest for today's podcast is Tim Hsia, founder and Managing Partner of Context Ventures, a venture fund that invests in military veteran founders and also in consumer startups. Some of Tim's startup investments prior to Context Ventures include Workflow (acquired by Apple), Morning Brew (acquired by Business Insider), The Hustle (acquired by HubSpot), and Thredup (which IPO'd).  Tim is also the CEO & Founder of Media Mobilize (an online ad network, marketing agency, and media company).   Tim is a distinguished honor graduate of West Point and was commissioned as an infantry officer in the US Army. Tim transitioned from active duty in 2010 and graduated from Stanford's Graduate School of Business and Stanford Law School in 2014. While at Stanford he taught ROTC to cadets at Stanford and Santa Clara University.   Tim is the eptiome of the word “grit”.  Without further ado, here is our conversation with Tim Hsia.

 To root out inefficiency and corruption in government, we turn to inspectors general. Glenn A. Fine served as the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Defense. He's now a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School and has taught at Stanford Law School and he joins host Krys Boyd to discuss what IGs do, why they are vital for a healthy government – and why he says the Supreme Court needs an Inspector General, too. His book is “Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government.” 

With abortion on the Nov. 5 ballot, we look back at Steve Levitt's controversial research about an unintended consequence of Roe v. Wade. SOURCES:John Donohue, professor of law at Stanford Law School.Steve Levitt, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago and host of People I (Mostly) Admire.Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, professor of economics at Amherst College. RESOURCES:“The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime Over the Last Two Decades,” by John J. Donohue and Steven D. Levitt (The National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019).“The Demise of the Death Penalty in Connecticut,” by John J. Donohue (Stanford Law School Legal Aggregate, 2016).“Environmental Policy as Social Policy? The Impact of Childhood Lead Exposure on Crime,” by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes (The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2007).“The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime,” by John J. Donohue and Steven D. Levitt (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2001).“State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment,” by Rebecca M. Blank, Christine C. George, and Rebecca A. London (The National Bureau of Economic Research, 1994). EXTRAS:"John Donohue: 'I'm Frequently Called a Treasonous Enemy of the Constitution,'" by People I (Mostly) Admire (2021).

The First Amendment. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It is meant to protect our freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. On this show I sit down with Steven T. Collis. Steven is a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin. He's a former research fellow at Stanford Law School and is the founding faculty director of the Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center and is one of the nation's leading thought leaders on the First Amendment and civil discourse. When there are issues and conflict around First Amendment rights, Steven is one of the first people called in by our nation. He recently wrote a book and the title itself reveals something profound to me. The title of the book is Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues. What does it say about how our culture is treating the First Amendment when one of it's leading experts doesn't write a book about what the First Amendment is or how to follow it, but instead speaks instead to the heart of human conflict around people's conflict with each other? Steven takes his expertise and platform to address what he feels is more important than legalities and right, and goes to where he feels the most hope is. The heart. Habit One in his book is titled, Intellectual Humility and Reframing, and starts off with this statement, “Most of us need to recognize that, most of the time, we don't know what we're talking about.” It just gets better. I'm having all my kids listen to this so we can discuss it together. I'd like everyone to hear this before the next election, and I'd recommend giving Steven's new book, Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues to everyone for Christmas. Actually, give it to them before Thanksgiving and reduce the family tensions by 95%. We argue and make things worse instead of making a difference. Let's you and I be different.  Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/kevin Go to shipstation.com and use code KEVIN to sign up for your FREE 60-day trial Get 20% off your first probiotic membership order at pendulumlife.com/drivesyou  Kajabi is offering a free 30-day trial to start your business if you go to Kajabi.com/kevin Go to cozyearth.com/driven and use code DRIVEN for an exclusive 40% discount Join thousands of parents who trust Fabric to protect their family. Apply in minutes at meetfabric.com/WHATDRIVESYOU. If you're concerned about OCD, visit NOCD.com to schedule a free 15-minute call with their team. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The National Labor Relations Board is facing legal challenges from SpaceX, Amazon, Starbucks and other companies that argue that the nearly 90-year old agency is unconstitutional. The NLRB investigates labor disputes and protects employees' right to organize, but if these companies have their way in court, it could result in the dissolution of the agency and the statute it enforces. We look at the cases and their implications for both employers and labor organizers. Guests: Samuel Estreicher, professor of public law; director, the Center for Labor and Employment Law; director, the Institute of Judicial Administration at NYU School of Law William G. Gould IV, professor emeritus specializing in labor law and employment discrimination law, Stanford Law School; former chairman, the National Labor Relations Board in the Clinton administration Farida Jhabvala Romero, labor correspondent, KQED

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Kamala Harris' win against Donald Trump in the presidential debate; the Harris endorsements by Taylor Swift and Dick and Liz Cheney; and election integrity with Professor Nathaniel Persily of Stanford Law School. Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Willa Paskin and Cheyna Roth for Decoder Ring: If You Give a Mouse a Cookie… Will He Want a Welfare Check? and Wangjie Hu et al. in Science: Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition John: Sasha Weiss for The New York Times Magazine: The Prince We Never Knew; Mike Wall for Space.com: New record! 19 people are orbiting Earth right now; and Black Fire by Sonni Cooper  David: Hemispheres Listener chatter from Curt Fonger in Daphne, Alabama: Caity Weaver for The New York Times Magazine: America Must Free Itself from the Tyranny of the Penny   For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, David, Emily, and John continue their conversation with Nate Persily on election integrity.  In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Joshua Leifer about his book, Tablets Shattered.  Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Public.com+Public Investing Disclosure: Public Investing offers a High-Yield Cash Account where funds from this account are automatically deposited into partner banks where they earn interest and are eligible for FDIC insurance; Public Investing is not a bank. See public.com/#disclosures-main for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Kamala Harris' win against Donald Trump in the presidential debate; the Harris endorsements by Taylor Swift and Dick and Liz Cheney; and election integrity with Professor Nathaniel Persily of Stanford Law School. Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Willa Paskin and Cheyna Roth for Decoder Ring: If You Give a Mouse a Cookie… Will He Want a Welfare Check? and Wangjie Hu et al. in Science: Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition John: Sasha Weiss for The New York Times Magazine: The Prince We Never Knew; Mike Wall for Space.com: New record! 19 people are orbiting Earth right now; and Black Fire by Sonni Cooper  David: Hemispheres Listener chatter from Curt Fonger in Daphne, Alabama: Caity Weaver for The New York Times Magazine: America Must Free Itself from the Tyranny of the Penny   For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, David, Emily, and John continue their conversation with Nate Persily on election integrity.  In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Joshua Leifer about his book, Tablets Shattered.  Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Public.com+Public Investing Disclosure: Public Investing offers a High-Yield Cash Account where funds from this account are automatically deposited into partner banks where they earn interest and are eligible for FDIC insurance; Public Investing is not a bank. See public.com/#disclosures-main for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on the pod, we team up with Yvette Borjas, the founder of Radio Cachimbona, and chat about immigration policy, what we think about the Harris campaign's take on the issue, and what we're reading. Radio Cachimbona is a podcast by one Salvi-Taurean Cachimbona growing, healing, and storytelling in Southern Arizona (and now Los Angeles). Our friends at mitú helped to produce this episode.  Yvette Borjas is the daughter of Salvadoran asylum seekers who fled the civil war in the 1980's. As the first person in her family to graduate from college, she earned a BA from Yale College and graduated in 2018 from Stanford Law School. Yvetter worked as a civil rights attorney focused on border and immigration issues at the ACLU of Arizona. She's a new angeleno lecturing at UCLA. Listen to Radio Cachimbona: https://www.radiocachimbona.com/ Tamarindo is a lighthearted show hosted by Brenda Gonzalez and Delsy Sandoval talking about politics, culture, and self-development. We're here to uplift our community through powerful conversations with changemakers, creatives, and healers. Join us as we delve into discussions on race, gender, representation, and life! You can get in touch with us at www.tamarindopodcast.com Brenda Gonzalez and Delsy Sandoval are executive producers of Tamarindo podcast with production support by Karina Riveroll of Sonoro Media. Jeff Ricards produced our theme song. If you want to support our work, please rate and review our show here.  SUPPORT OUR SHOW Contribute to the show: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/tamarindopodcast1 Follow Tamarindo on instagram @tamarindopodcast and on twitter at @tamarindocast  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Payton explores the chilling case of a murderer who may have drawn inspiration from a world-renowned horror film. MERCH: https://mwmhshop.com/ Case Sources: Justia Law - https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/48/247.html Los Angeles Times - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-24-me-669-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-03-14-mn-686-story.html  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-11-me-896-story.html  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-06-23-me-963-story.html  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-06-25-me-1347-story.html  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-08-04-me-5098-story.html  The Ledger - https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840913&id=5jROAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3406,5325543  UPI - https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/12/15/A-convicted-killer-who-said-drugs-and-the-movie/8683471934800/  Stanford Law School - https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-boyer-33625  McClatchy DC - https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article75150457.html  The Orange County Register - https://www.ocregister.com/2015/07/17/death-penalty-upheld-for-man-who-killed-fullerton-couple/  Daily Star - https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/real-life-michael-myers-stabbed-28169438 Statista - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346792/popularity-horror-movie-genre-age-group-united-states/ Yahoo! Life - https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/why-scary-movies-good-mental-040000683.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF0L0vpOTz2LsY2QgeuLQjzmfS-X9uh8ZAwnL2rTufJpIT0H_ReWcKWgF9awg_dXt18AXyAhm_BbI4mazEhcFiJVJsnn_olclt4YaTwDJQ1YDODQH4jBLbWRj72PZoE-nfTyiE4FJ_bNDg25CBqnOHoqvNA4IwJfymJ68wczp7La American Film Market - https://americanfilmmarket.com/what-the-data-says-producing-low-budget-horror-films/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices