Podcasts about Stanford Law School

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

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike has a conversation with Orin Kerr, a prominent law professor and legal academic who currently serves as a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. In his 25+ years as a law school faculty member, Professor Kerr has written 75+ law review articles, authored casebooks, and been cited in 4,500+ academic articles and 500+ judicial decisions, including several U.S. Supreme Court opinions. He has held tenured positions at Stanford Law, GW Law, USC Law, and UC Berkeley Law, and he has been a visiting professor at UChicago Law, Penn Law, and Yale Law.In addition to his career in academia, Professor Kerr completed two clerkships, including a Supreme Court clerkship with Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued before the Supreme Court, and practiced law for a number of years, including as a trial attorney for the Department of Justice in the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He has a bachelor's degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Princeton University, a master's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Professor Kerr discusses how law schools try to balance preparing students to be practice-ready with teaching how to think like a lawyer (5:49), what Professor Kerr sees as the “ideal” legal training (11:27), what professors actually think when someone messes up a cold call (37:58), how and when he knew he wanted to become a law professor (1:47), the “old way” and the “new way” that law schools hire faculty (3:41), advice for prospective law students who want to become law professors (12:32), the different types of law professors (12:51), every professor's least favorite part of the job (23:12), the built-in advantages that some students enter law school already having (32:48), Professor Kerr's most-read law review article (33:50), and more.They also discuss a video that Professor Kerr recorded last year, “So You're About To Start Law School: A Law Student's Guide with Stanford Law Professor Orin Kerr.” You can watch that video for free on YouTube here.You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps here.

In this special episode, recorded at the Neukom Center's Rule of Law Speaker Series, Judge J. Michael Luttig, former Fourth Circuit judge and ex-General Counsel of Boeing,  discusses a looming constitutional crises facing the United States. Drawing on Lincoln, Paine, and Churchill, Judge Luttig argues that the Trump administration's actions represent not the exploitation of constitutional vulnerabilities, but unconstitutional conduct that federal courts have repeatedly struck down. He expresses particular alarm over the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket to stay lower court decisions without briefing, argument, or written reasoning — a practice he characterizes as a crisis within the Court itself. Judge Luttig also addresses the DOJ's institutional corruption, Congress's abdication of war powers and tariff authority, and the Supreme Court's sweeping immunity ruling in Trump v. United States. Throughout, he challenges law students to treat their professional oath as a solemn civic obligation in a moment of national testing. Links: Honorable J. Michael Luttig >>> Federal Judicial Center page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00) America at 250—A Nation Under Assault from Within (14:00) The Legal Profession as Guardian of the Constitution  (20:30) Unconstitutional by Design—The Trump Administration's Legal Record (28:00) The Corruption of the DOJ (36:00) Congress, the War Power, and the Collapse of Separation of Powers (42:30) The Supreme Court, the Shadow Docket, and Presidential Immunity  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“As long as democracy is a collective endeavour of all the people who belong to it, in some sense it can never be finished — because we are constantly bequeathing to the next generation the opportunity and the freedom to have these conversations over and over again.” — Alexandra Natapoff It's less than six weeks until America's 250th birthday. The official America 250 store is selling T-shirts while Harvard Law School is doing something slightly less commercial. 62 HLS professors have written 1,000-word essays, assembled into a single volume to be published on July 4. Entitled America Unfinished: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Law and Governance, it's co-edited by Alexandra Natapoff, a Harvard Law professor who spent years as a federal public defender in Baltimore. The title, of course, is borrowed from the Gettysburg Address, where Lincoln charged the living with completing “the unfinished work” of those who died in the Civil War. So is America unfinished or is it just getting started? For Natapoff and other Harvard Law School professors like this year's Pulitzer Prize-winning Jill Lepore, the answer is suitably complex. Yes and no and maybe. Everything all at once. The essays focus on 250 years of both justice and injustice in America. Perhaps the only thing all authors agree on is the central role of capitalism in the history of the United States. Follow the money, Natapoff suggests. Those dollars will transport the reader to the heart of the American story. That said, America Unfinished will certainly cost you less than a three-year Harvard Law degree. And if you wait six months, the book will be available at no cost online. So follow the money. It will take you to some unexpectedly free places. Five Takeaways •       The Gettysburg Address as the Title's Source: The book does not merely allude to Lincoln's famous speech — it reproduces it at the front, so readers can go back to the original. In the Address, Lincoln charged the living with completing “the unfinished work” of those who died at Gettysburg — the work of building a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Natapoff and Charles chose this frame because it captures both the challenge and the hope: democracy is unfinished in the sense that it demands active work from every generation. It is not a gift that has been fully delivered. It is a task being handed on. •       America and Democracy Are Not the Same Thing: Andrew's challenge — you use the words interchangeably — earns a concession. Natapoff's work in criminal justice has led her to argue repeatedly that the American criminal system fails many tests of democracy: it is exclusive, inegalitarian, overly coercive, inconsistent with democratic principles. So ‘America' and ‘democracy' are not synonyms in the book. Many of the 62 essays disagree about the state of various pieces of governance. The book's inquiry is whether it is fair to call any particular piece of American legal governance a democracy — which both editors consider a compliment, and not a certainty. •       A Federal Public Defender in Baltimore: The Biography Behind the Scholarship: Before she became a law professor, Natapoff was a federal public defender in Baltimore's federal courts. Her job was to be adverse to the federal government all day every day, defending some of the most vulnerable and dispossessed people in the city against the massive resources and power of the federal apparatus. Those years shaped everything: her subsequent twenty years of scholarship on criminal courts, plea bargaining, misdemeanors, and race and inequality; her book Punishment Without Crime; and her contribution to America Unfinished. In her reading, the experience of her clients — people facing off against the federal government — is now more widely shared than it used to be. •       It's the Money, Not the Lawyers: Dan Wang's recent book Breakneck contrasts China, run by engineers, and America, run by lawyers. Natapoff's counter, via the book's economic governance essays: it's much more complicated than that. Six very different scholars who disagree about almost everything converge on a perhaps surprising answer: it's the money. Financial interests, corporate interests, the ownership class — in one way or another, they've been running America. The lawyers helped. They were part of the management scheme. But they weren't making the decisions. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. •       Molly Brady's Essay: Property Law and the Destruction of Community: Asked to pick her favourite essay without starting a fight with 61 colleagues, Natapoff flags the very last one: Professor Maureen “Molly” Brady on property law. Brady argues that property law has permitted suburban sprawl and the destruction of physical community — the kind of infrastructure that makes analog life (libraries, neighbours, public space) possible — while being profligate in its support for social media and the dispersed, thinner version of community. She exhorts us to remember how law has contributed positively to communities we are proud of, and to stand up for that vision. For Natapoff, it captures both the critical nature of this moment and why lawyering still holds out some important promise. About the Guest Alexandra Natapoff is the Lee S. Kreindler Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, a 2016 Guggenheim Fellow, and a graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School. She began her legal career as a federal public defender in Baltimore. She is the author of Punishment Without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal (Basic Books) and Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice (NYU Press). She is co-editor, with Guy-Uriel Charles, of America Unfinished: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Law and Governance (MIT Press, July 4, 2026). References: •       America Unfinished: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Law and Governance, co-edited by Alexandra Natapoff and Guy-Uriel Charles (MIT Press, July 4, 2026). Open access from January 2027. •       Alexandra Natapoff, Punishment Without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal (Basic Books, 2018). •       Dan Wang, Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future — referenced in the interview as the “America run by lawyers” contrast. •       Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (1863) — reproduced at the front of the book; the source of the title. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since ...

“THE GARDEN OF ALLAH: COCKTAILS, SCANDALS & MISCHIEF” - 5/25/2026 (141) Once upon a time, there was a magical, decadent hotel in Hollywood where stars could avoid the scrutiny of the public and studio executives and really let their hair down. And, boy, did they! It was a place where there were no rules, there was a party every night, and the rich and famous could frolic carelessly around the pool - and sometimes in the pool, fully dressed. This magical place was the Garden of Allah — the brainchild of actress ALLA NAZIMOVA. This week, we will discuss the magic, the mystery, the decadence, and the debauchery of one of Hollywood's most famous hotels. SHOW NOTES: Sources: Garden of Allah: Hollywood Homosexual Haven (2020), by Michael Hone; Laid Back in Hollywood (1998), by Patricia Medina Cotten; The Garden of Allah (1970), by Sheilah Grahame; “The Garden of Allah,” by Jon Ponder, WestHollywoodHistory.org; “The People V. Hill,” Stanford Law School; “Forgotten Hollywood: The Garden of Allah,” September 22, 2022, by Meher Tatna, GoldenGlobes.com; “Hedonist Hollywood's Lost Garden of Allah,” October 13, 2020, by MessyNessy, MessyNessyChic.com; “Hollywood's Hotel Hedonism: It's one of Tinsel Town's last untold stories...how stars from Sinatra to Olivier, Garbo and Monroe indulged their every vice at a VIP hideaway and clothes were not required!” May 15, 2015, by Tom Leonard, DailyMail.com; “This Hotel Kept All of Secrets of the Rich and Famous…Until Now,” June 23, 2015, by Kirk Silsbee, Gentleman's Quarterly; Wikipedia.com TCM.com; IMDBPro.com; --------------------------------- http://www.airwavemedia.com Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on our podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

The First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine sets a structural constitutional barrier keeping the State from interfering in certain matters of a church. While the doctrine’s roots go deeper than even the nation’s Founding, how exactly it protects churches has recently and sharply divided courts. Some courts say it provides broad protections for matters falling within its scope—barring not only liability for removing a wayward minister, but also entangling and distracting litigation into the merits of that minister’s claims. But other courts—over a chorus of dissenting colleagues—have narrowed church autonomy to barring liability only. This has many important implications, including whether there can be a right of appeal when trial courts deny church autonomy defenses and send cases to entangling merits adjudication. The Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the contours of this doctrine in a case stemming from a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that challenges how the Catholic Church has described and used Peter's Pence, an offering that has been given to the Pope for over 1,000 years. Join us as a panel of experts explore the future of the church autonomy doctrine and what may unfold if the Supreme Court takes up the pending case concerning Peter's Pence. Featuring:Branton Nestor, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPProf. Lael Weinberger, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School

From January 9, 2025: 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.

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

THE ENLIGHTENED CYNICEpisode: The Rule of Law — What It Means, Why It Matters, and What You Can DoHost: Dr. Larry BarshGuest: Professor Alexandra Natapoff, Harvard Law SchoolEPISODE SUMMARYIn this inaugural episode under its new name, The Enlightened Cynic welcomes Harvard Law Professor Alexandra Natapoff for a conversation about one of the most urgent concepts of our time: the rule of law. Professor Natapoff explains what rule of law actually means in 2026, why she chose to open Harvard Law's classroom to the general public at no charge, and what ordinary citizens can do to help preserve democratic institutions under pressure.ABOUT OUR GUESTAlexandra Natapoff is the Lee S. Kreindler Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A former federal public defender, 2016 Guggenheim Fellow, and member of the American Law Institute, she is a leading national voice on how the legal system actually functions. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School, she has testified before Congress and numerous state legislative bodies, helped draft state and federal legislation, and her work appears regularly in judicial opinions and the national media.KEY TOPICS COVEREDWhat Is the Rule of Law?Rule of law is the foundational agreement in any constitutional democracy — the commitment that government will be run according to collectively established laws, not by whoever holds the most power or money. As Professor Natapoff puts it, we are "a government of laws and not of men."Why Now?Professor Natapoff created the Rule of Law Teaching Project in response to what she describes as mounting pressure on the entire infrastructure of American democracy — visible in the courts, in immigration enforcement, and within the legal profession itself.The Rule of Law Teaching ProjectOriginally developed for her own Harvard Law students, the project is a free, 10-part video series featuring top constitutional law experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, NYU, Northwestern, UCLA, Michigan, and other leading institutions. Each expert presents one landmark Supreme Court case in their area of specialty. Topics include voting rights, federalism, campaign finance, same-sex marriage, policing, prisoners' rights, gender discrimination, and the right to privacy.The conversation explores two major schools of constitutional interpretation: originalism, which argues for fidelity to the founding text and the amendment process, and the living constitution approach, which views law as an evolving democratic conversation. Professor Natapoff frames this not as a debate with a right answer, but as part of the rule of law conversation itself.What Can Ordinary Citizens Do?Professor Natapoff encourages listeners not to be paralyzed by the scale of current challenges. She points to the community response in Minneapolis to ICE enforcement actions as an example of ordinary people exercising their First Amendment rights and protecting their neighbors. Her message: use what's in your pantry. Every citizen has something to contribute — a conversation, a shared link, a community meeting, a vote.Why This Audience MattersDr. Barsh and Professor Natapoff discuss why older Americans — who lived through the civil rights milestones of the 1960s, Bush v. Gore, and decades of constitutional evolution — bring irreplaceable knowledge to this moment. Their memories are not just personal history; they are living context for how far the country has come and what is at stake.RESOURCERule of Law Teaching Project — free, 10-part video seriesWebsite: ruleoflaw101.orgAlso available on YouTube — episodes can be shared individually via linkCOMING UPProfessor Natapoff will return in a few months to share new educational materials currently in development. Stay tuned.Links:RuleofLaw101.orgYouTube.com/@RuleofLaw

1. Allegations of Qatar’s Influence Campaign in the U.S. Qatar spends billions of dollars funding U.S. universities to influence American public opinion and academic culture. Qatar hires Washington, D.C.–based PR and lobbying firms to “whitewash” its image, particularly regarding claims of support for extremist groups. Qatar’s status is the largest foreign funder of U.S. universities, surpassing countries like China, and suggests this funding correlates with campus political activism. Specific universities (e.g., Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon) are highlighted as major recipients of foreign funds. Financial relationships will limit criticism of foreign governments, citing an example of a U.S. university campus in Qatar allegedly restricting speech about the Qatari regime. 2. Clarence Thomas’s Judicial Philosophy Thomas is emphasizing: Judicial restraint and discipline Originalism and adherence to the Constitution’s original meaning The belief that rights come from God, not government, grounded in the Declaration of Independence His personal background (raised by his grandfather, strict discipline, plainspoken style) is presented as shaping his judicial approach. Thomas’s views with progressivism, which characterizes asserting that rights derive from government authority rather than natural or divine sources. A Senate hearing anecdote is used to illustrate this ideological divide, portraying progressive views as mainstream within the modern Democratic Party. 3. Free Speech Conflicts on College Campuses At UCLA Law School, protesters disrupted a talk by a Department of Homeland Security lawyer. The disruption is a “heckler’s veto,” preventing speech rather than expressing dissent. Similar past incidents at Stanford Law School are cited to argue that some law students’ conduct is incompatible with professional legal standards. University administrations are failing to protect speech and enforce order during such events. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center The Southern Poverty Law Center: Was criminally indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice. Funded or financially supported extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi organizations, and organizers of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally. Engaged in wire fraud, money laundering, and donor deception. The SPLC is operating a fraudulent fundraising model, allegedly exaggerating or manufacturing extremism to increase donations. The SPLC funding of extremists is: Intentional Long‑term Central to its fundraising success Corporate donors (Apple, JPMorgan, MGM, etc.) are cited as unwitting enablers, accused of donating for “virtue signaling.” 2. Media and Institutional Complicity Mainstream media ignored or covered up SPLC wrongdoing. Corporate America gave millions without oversight. Political and cultural elites protected SPLC due to ideological alignment. Past warnings from commentators (e.g., John Stossel) are cited as evidence that concerns were longstanding. 3. Political Impact The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville is described as: Financially linked to SPLC funding, according to the show’s claims. Used politically to attack conservatives and Donald Trump. The SPLC allegedly used extremist events to drive massive fundraising growth, citing revenue increases after major controversies. 4. Free Speech and Campus Controversies A UCLA Law School event where progressive students allegedly disrupted and silenced a conservative speaker from the Department of Homeland Security. The behavior is a “heckler’s veto”, framed as: Antithetical to free speech A sign of ideological intolerance on the left Comparisons are made to similar incidents at Stanford Law School. Law students are criticized as being unfit for the legal profession if they engage in such conduct. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Constitutional law is a different animal than civil or criminal law — and a president can subvert it. Duncan Hosie is a fellow at Stanford Law School, and he joins host Krys Boyd to discuss why the judicial branch shouldn't be the end game for dealing with a president's executive orders, why the legislative branch needs to get more involved, and why hoping that the Supreme Court will definitively decide hot-button issues is a mistake. His article in The New York Times is “The Courts Cannot Save Us from Trump.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

From September 1, 2020: On August 13, President Trump said in a news interview that he opposed supplemental funding for the United States Postal Service because such funding is needed for the delivery of universal mail-in ballots for the 2020 election. His comments sparked panic about whether the Trump administration is slowing Postal Service delivery in order to sway the election. Images of blue mailboxes being removed and anecdotes about slow mail delivery added fuel to the fire. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy was called to testify before Senate and House oversight committees. Lawsuits were filed by a host of state attorneys general.So what's really going on here? Is this election interference, the implementation of legitimate policies or something else? Margaret Taylor sat down with Kevin Kosar of the American Enterprise Institute and Anne Joseph O'Connell of Stanford Law School to sort through the facts, the policy changes, the investigations and the lawsuits—and what it all means for the 2020 election.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.

Send us Fan MailChatGPT can draft a motion in seconds, but what happens when the motion is polished nonsense and a real person signs it? We bring on Iran Kahana, a practicing attorney and Stanford Law School research fellow, to unpack a lawsuit that claims OpenAI caused harm by enabling AI generated court filings and effectively “doing law.” The story starts with a settlement, a case of buyer's regret, and a flood of ChatGPT fueled motions that leave courts and opposing parties paying the price.From there, we dig into the heart of legal AI ethics: hallucinated case citations, confident sounding errors, and why “it passed the bar” marketing can create dangerous expectations for everyday users. Iran makes the case that the better frame is often product liability, not unauthorized practice of law, because foundation model developers knowingly ship tools that can fabricate authority while still sounding right. We also talk about the practical reality inside law firms, where AI can save time when used for brainstorming, but can create real exposure when lawyers treat it like a research engine.We close with the consequences and the future: Rule 11 sanctions, professional discipline, looming malpractice claims, and whether malpractice insurance even covers “delegating judgment to a machine.” Then we zoom out to AI governance and guardrails, including the idea of jurisdiction aware restrictions and stronger refusal modes for legal conclusions. If you care about legal tech, generative AI, and the future of legal practice, hit subscribe, share this with a lawyer friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show.

This Day in Legal History: Seventeenth Amendment RatifiedOn April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became part of the Constitution after receiving the necessary number of state ratifications. This amendment fundamentally changed the method of selecting U.S. senators, shifting the power from state legislatures directly to voters. Prior to its adoption, senators were chosen by state lawmakers, a process that had increasingly drawn criticism for corruption and political deadlock. Reformers argued that legislative selection allowed special interests to exert undue influence over Senate seats. The amendment emerged during the Progressive Era, a period marked by widespread efforts to make government more democratic and transparent. By mandating direct elections, it aimed to increase accountability and restore public trust in the federal government. The change also reduced the frequency of vacancies caused by legislative gridlock in the states. Supporters viewed the amendment as a necessary correction to a system that had strayed from democratic principles. Critics, however, warned that it weakened the role of states within the federal structure. The ratification process itself reflected strong public pressure for reform across many states. Over time, the amendment reshaped the political dynamics of the Senate, making senators more responsive to public opinion. It also aligned the Senate more closely with the House of Representatives in terms of democratic legitimacy. Today, the Seventeenth Amendment remains a cornerstone of how Americans participate in federal elections, illustrating the enduring impact of Progressive Era reforms.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said that Donald Trump has both the right and responsibility to influence federal investigations, including those involving people Trump views as adversaries. Speaking publicly for the first time since taking the role, Blanche rejected claims that the Justice Department was improperly targeting Trump's opponents. He argued that a president is expected to guide national priorities, even when that includes investigations tied to personal or political conflicts.The Justice Department has recently pursued multiple investigations involving individuals connected to past inquiries into Trump, as well as political opponents and donors. Some of these efforts have faced resistance in court, with judges and grand juries limiting or dismissing certain cases. Blanche pointed to past prosecutions against Trump as justification, saying the president is seeking accountability for what he views as misuse of the legal system.Blanche's appointment followed Trump's firing of former Attorney General Pam Bondi, reportedly due to frustration over the pace and results of investigations. Blanche did not say whether he wants to remain in the role permanently, emphasizing that the decision rests with Trump. He also indicated he would step aside if asked, expressing loyalty to the president.Acting DOJ chief Blanche says Trump has ‘right' to influence investigations | ReutersYale Law School lost its long-held No. 1 position in the latest U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, marking the first time in 36 years it has not topped the list. Stanford Law School now holds the sole No. 1 spot, while Yale is tied for second with University of Chicago Law School. A slight drop in Yale's employment rate for graduates appears to have contributed to the shift, though other metrics like bar passage and LSAT scores remained stable.The rankings also saw broader changes among the traditionally top 14 law schools, known as the “T-14.” University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Georgetown University Law Center both fell out of that group, while Cornell Law School and Vanderbilt University Law School moved up in the rankings. Other schools, including University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and University of Virginia School of Law, saw smaller gains, while Harvard Law School remained steady.These fluctuations reflect changes in the ranking methodology introduced in recent years after several top schools, including Yale and Berkeley, criticized the system. The updated approach relies more heavily on data reported to the American Bar Association, making small differences in employment and bar passage rates more influential.Yale loses longtime No. 1 spot on latest US law school ranking | ReutersAI startups are increasingly targeting law students as part of a broader effort to capture the legal services market. Companies like Harvey AI and Legora are offering free access and training at top law schools, hoping students will continue using their tools once they enter law firms and corporate legal roles. This strategy comes as the legal AI sector expands rapidly, fueled by advances in generative AI since the rise of ChatGPT.These startups compete with established providers like LexisNexis and Westlaw, which have long dominated legal research and are now integrating AI into their platforms. While legacy companies rely on proprietary legal databases, newer entrants build tools on large language models and focus on tasks like drafting, research, and litigation preparation. Some partnerships have even emerged between startups and traditional providers to combine strengths.Law students are already using these tools for exam preparation, memo writing, and simulating legal arguments. Schools and companies also view this exposure as a way to teach both the benefits and risks of AI, including issues like inaccurate or “hallucinated” outputs. The broader goal is to create familiarity early, making future lawyers more likely to adopt these tools in practice.Other legal tech companies, including Clio and Spellbook, are pursuing similar partnerships, expanding access across hundreds of law schools. As competition grows, early access and training are becoming key battlegrounds for shaping the next generation of legal professionals.AI startups court law students in fight for lawyer market | Reuters 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

What if the biggest barrier to justice in America is the legal profession itself and the solution begins by rethinking who is allowed to help people solve their legal problems? Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg sit down with Natalie Knowlton of Stanford Law School's Deborah L. Rhode Center about the widening gap between the legal system and the people it is meant to serve. Millions of Americans cannot access legal help, including many in the middle class. Natalie argues the problem goes beyond funding. The structure of the profession itself limits who can deliver legal services and how people receive help. This conversation sits at the intersection of Legal Tech, Access to Justice, policy, and innovation. A central question drives the discussion. Should lawyers be the only people allowed to provide legal assistance? Natalie challenges that long-standing assumption. Many everyday legal needs involve simple processes such as filling out forms or navigating court procedures. Could trained non-lawyers and technology expand access where lawyers are scarce or unaffordable? The conversation explores how emerging Legal Tech tools and direct-to-consumer platforms may help people understand legal problems and identify practical next steps. The episode also looks at how legal education, regulation, and global experimentation shape the future of the profession. Natalie points to reforms in places like the United Kingdom and Canada that test new service models through regulatory sandboxes. Could similar experimentation help the United States close the justice gap? The discussion leaves listeners with a larger question about the future of law. What would the legal system look like if it were designed around real human needs and genuine Access to Justice?   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Access to Justice and the Future of Legal Services 01:11 Natalie Knowlton's Journey Into Legal Innovation 06:28 Why Most Americans Cannot Afford Legal Help 10:34 Non-Lawyer Legal Services and UPL Reform 12:13 Legal Tech and Direct-to-Consumer Justice Tools 18:42 Legal Innovation Lessons From the UK and Canada 20:35 The Future of Law and Access to Justice Connect with Natalie Knowlton: Natalie's Company Web Bio  Connect with Natalie on LinkedIn    Connect with Howard Rosenberg: Connect with Howard on LinkedIn  Howard's Company Web Profile   Connect with Chris Batz: Connect with Chris on LinkedIn  Follow Columbus Street on LinkedIn Columbus Street Website  MergerWatch Website Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm  

We'll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes. In the meantime, here's one of our favorite episodes, about a wannabe media magnate whose big vision ran on even bigger lies.Carlos Watson is a Stanford Law School graduate with big Silicon Valley connections and even bigger dreams. When he pitches investors on his idea for a Millennial-focused news website called Ozy Media, it seems like a sure bet. It's the early 2010s, and online media start-ups have generated tons of buzz – and more importantly, tons of clicks. But Carlos doesn't actually know what he's doing. And when Ozy fails to attract the readers he's promised his investors, he decides to ditch the business of truth-telling and go rogue.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Trump administration came in promising mass deportation. What has followed goes well beyond border control to matters of local policing, detention, federal power, and the limits of the law inside the United States. On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Richard Thompson Ford talks with immigration expert Jennifer Chacón, the Bruce Tyson Mitchell Professor of Law, about the Trump administration's immigration enforcement agenda and the profound consequences it is having in cities and communities across the country. They discuss racial profiling, ignored court orders, pressure on states and localities, and the widening reach of immigration enforcement into everyday civic life. Professor Chacón, author of a casebook on immigration law, elaborates on some of the themes in her recently published paper “The Law of the Immigration Raid.” Links: Jennifer Chacón >>> Stanford Law page Legal Phantoms >>> Stanford Law page Immigration Law and Social Justice >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X   (00:00:00) Immigration Enforcement in 2026 (00:03:47) The Economics of a Closed Border (00:09:58) Closing the Border to Asylum (00:10:44) Profiling in Immigration Enforcement (00:16:48) Courts, Defiance, and Detention (00:25:40) Sanctuary, Commandeering, and the Weaponization of Immigration (00:32:26) How States Can Restore the Humane Dimensions of Immigration Law Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Anson Zhou (2024 cohort) interviews Amanda Morrison (2024 cohort), a JD student at Stanford Law School, about the through line connecting her upbringing in Montana, her longtime relationship to dance, her work in documentary filmmaking, and her decision to pursue law. Amanda imagines a world where human connection prevails over loneliness and division. She reflects on how the outdoors and ballet trained her in discipline, endurance, and growth through discomfort, and how those lessons continue to shape the way she moves through new challenges.Highlights from the episode:(03:06) Growing up in Helena, Montana and getting into ballet(08:11) Why she began studying policy(10:50) Going to China and studying U.S.–China relations(16:55) Becoming immersed in the world of film and then law(27:37) Storytelling as a tool in law(34:55) Pursuing her interests in law school(52:30) Improbable fact, Denning House snack takes, and advice for future applicants

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

President Trump tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and he's already laying the groundwork to undermine our confidence in the midterm elections. Kara brings together three experts to map out how Trump is trying to tilt the November elections before a single ballot is cast, and what he might do during and after election day to maintain his grip on power. She's joined by: Natalie Adona, the registrar of voters for Marin County, California. Adona is the co-author of the books “Understanding the Voter Experience” and “Stewards of Democracy,” and a contributing author to the recently published book, “Local Election Administrators in the United States: The Frontline of Democracy."  Susan B. Glasser is a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine. She writes a weekly column on life in Washington and is a host of the Political Scene podcast. Her recent article on this topic, “Donald Trump Already Knows the 2026 Election Is ‘Rigged,'” is essential reading for those who want to understand the threat Trump poses.  And Nate Persily is the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the co-director of the Stanford Law AI Initiative. He is an expert on election law and redistricting, and he's the co-author of the leading election law casebook, “The Law of Democracy.”  Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"We are still dealing with a system which tolerates rampant abuse of accused people." — Emily Galvin AlmanzaBack in April 2024, we interviewed Thelton Henderson, one of the first African American federal judges in America. What disturbed me about our conversation was that even though Henderson grew up in the late Jim Crow era, he didn't seem to think that America is a profoundly more just place now than it was back then. Today's guest clerked for Judge Henderson, and her new book suggests he's right.Emily Galvin Almanza is a public defender turned activist, and The Price of Mercy is her data-driven indictment of a criminal justice system that, as she puts it, "tolerates rampant abuse of accused people, tolerates the blatantly racist application of the law, and tolerates a total lack of transparency." According to Almanza, the numbers are damning: 80% of cases are misdemeanors. 80% of people prosecuted are poor enough to need a public defender. 70% of people in jail haven't been convicted—they just can't afford bail. California's gang database was 99% people of color, she says, and famously included literal babies listed as having "admitted their gang affiliation."And here's both the good and bad news: crime is actually down. If you're under 50, she notes, you're living through the safest period of your lifetime. The solutions aren't mysterious either—housing reduces arrest rates by 80%, after-school programs cut youth violent crime in half. That's all good news for us. But it remains bad for those being unjustifiably prosecuted. We just lack the political will to implement what works. And as Galvin Almanza points out, this isn't a federal issue: 87% of prisoners are in jail on state charges. Change happens at the local level—DAs, sheriffs, state legislatures. The fixes, she says, are realizable. We just need the collective political will. That's the price of mercy in America today.About the GuestEmily Galvin Almanza is Executive Director of Partners for Justice and teaches at Stanford Law School. A former public defender, she clerked for Judge Thelton Henderson. Her new book is The Price of Mercy: Unfair Trials, a Violent System, and a Public Defender's Search for Justice in America (2026).ReferencesPeople mentioned:●      Thelton Henderson was one of the first African American federal judges in America, a civil rights pioneer for whom Galvin Almanza clerked.●      Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, blurbed the book. Galvin Almanza agrees "without hesitation" that we're living in a new Jim Crow system.●      Alec Karakatsanis coined the term "copaganda" for media narratives that undermine smarter criminal justice solutions.●      Clara Shortridge Foltz was a 19th-century lawyer who coined the phrase "free and equal justice" and pioneered the public defender system.●      Andrew Ferguson of GW University appeared on the show recently with a book warning about surveillance.Key statistics from the book:●      80% of cases in the system are misdemeanors—trespassing, driving without a license, fare evasion.●      80% of people prosecuted are poor enough to be assigned a public defender.●      70% of people in jail haven't been convicted—they're awaiting trial and can't afford bail.●      87% of prisoners are there on state charges, not federal—making this a local issue.●      Every year of incarceration shaves two years off a person's expected lifespan.●      Being incarcerated cuts a person's expected lifetime earnings in half.●      Giving an unhoused person housing reduces their chances of future arrest by 80%.●      After-school programs can reduce youth involvement in violent crime by 50%.Concepts discussed:●      Cash bail is a $2 billion per year industry in America. Most civilized countries don't allow you to buy your freedom back from the government.●      "Failure to protect" laws criminalize women who are present while an abusive partner also abuses their child—charging victims as perpetrators.●      Self-defense laws were "designed with two men fighting in an alley in mind"—making them nearly useless for abused women who fight back.●      Gang databases in California were 99% people of color and included babies listed as having "admitted their gang affiliation."About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotifyChapters:(00:00) - Introduction: Thelton Henderson (02:22) - Has anything changed since the 1960s? (03:31) - Why isn't there more outrage? (05:46) - Michelle Alexander and the New Jim Crow (08:52) - Why is the system this way? (10:49) - Democrats vs. Republicans on criminal justice (13:14) - Breaking the cycle of poverty and criminalization (16:53) - Crime is actually going down (19:15) - Peeing on your stoop is a sex crime (19:59) - Women in the system: failure to protect (23:09) - Moving past punishment (26:06) - Nobody wants to marginalize the police (28:16) - Black Lives Matter and the march toward justice (29:32) - The Minneapolis killings (33:04) - Two Americas: Epstein and cash bail (39:10) - Can technology help? (41:20) - The price of mercy

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

The balance of powers among the three branches of government is fading away, facilitated by the judicial branch. Duncan Hosie is a fellow at Stanford Law School, and he joins host Krys Boyd to discuss how the Supreme Court is stripping Congress of its influence, what we lose when we allow unelected judges to be the sole interpreters of the Constitution, and which branch is most powerful now. His article “How the Supreme Court Broke Congress” was published in The Atlantic. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the differences between the fatal shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and invite Orin Kerr, professor of law at Stanford Law School, to talk about judicial and administrative warrants. The Agenda:–Comparing the two ICE shootings–Supremacy Clause and federal cases–Fourth Amendment rights–Racial gerrymandering in Texas–Answering our favorite listener's question Show Notes:–Supremacy Clause Immunity, Explained Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

George Fisher, the Judge John Crown Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, just released his new book Beware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's Drug War, with Oxford University Press. George has been teaching and writing in the realms of evidence, prosecution practice, and criminal legal history since 1995. He began practice as a prosecutor in Massachusetts and later taught at the law schools of Boston College, Harvard, and Yale. Beware Euphoria is the most recent among a slew of other books, articles, and essays that he's published over the years, and perhaps the most contrarian. In this interview, George discusses his research methods and how he came to the conclusion that the history of America's drug war, while racially motivated, was not meant to target minorities, but protect the morals and health of America's white youth. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is under contract with the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

George Fisher, the Judge John Crown Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, just released his new book Beware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's Drug War, with Oxford University Press. George has been teaching and writing in the realms of evidence, prosecution practice, and criminal legal history since 1995. He began practice as a prosecutor in Massachusetts and later taught at the law schools of Boston College, Harvard, and Yale. Beware Euphoria is the most recent among a slew of other books, articles, and essays that he's published over the years, and perhaps the most contrarian. In this interview, George discusses his research methods and how he came to the conclusion that the history of America's drug war, while racially motivated, was not meant to target minorities, but protect the morals and health of America's white youth. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is under contract with the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

George Fisher, the Judge John Crown Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, just released his new book Beware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's Drug War, with Oxford University Press. George has been teaching and writing in the realms of evidence, prosecution practice, and criminal legal history since 1995. He began practice as a prosecutor in Massachusetts and later taught at the law schools of Boston College, Harvard, and Yale. Beware Euphoria is the most recent among a slew of other books, articles, and essays that he's published over the years, and perhaps the most contrarian. In this interview, George discusses his research methods and how he came to the conclusion that the history of America's drug war, while racially motivated, was not meant to target minorities, but protect the morals and health of America's white youth. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is under contract with the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

George Fisher, the Judge John Crown Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, just released his new book Beware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's Drug War, with Oxford University Press. George has been teaching and writing in the realms of evidence, prosecution practice, and criminal legal history since 1995. He began practice as a prosecutor in Massachusetts and later taught at the law schools of Boston College, Harvard, and Yale. Beware Euphoria is the most recent among a slew of other books, articles, and essays that he's published over the years, and perhaps the most contrarian. In this interview, George discusses his research methods and how he came to the conclusion that the history of America's drug war, while racially motivated, was not meant to target minorities, but protect the morals and health of America's white youth. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is under contract with the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

George Fisher, the Judge John Crown Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, just released his new book Beware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's Drug War, with Oxford University Press. George has been teaching and writing in the realms of evidence, prosecution practice, and criminal legal history since 1995. He began practice as a prosecutor in Massachusetts and later taught at the law schools of Boston College, Harvard, and Yale. Beware Euphoria is the most recent among a slew of other books, articles, and essays that he's published over the years, and perhaps the most contrarian. In this interview, George discusses his research methods and how he came to the conclusion that the history of America's drug war, while racially motivated, was not meant to target minorities, but protect the morals and health of America's white youth. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is under contract with the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Daniel Lubetzky is the founder of KIND and one of the most influential entrepreneurs in modern consumer brands. In this episode, we break down how he went from a $24,000 salary after Stanford Law School to building a $5 billion company, why long term thinking matters more than early wins, and how purpose driven capitalism can create both impact and scale. Daniel shares how embracing setbacks shaped his approach to business, why most people misunderstand wealth creation, and what it really takes to build something that lasts without chasing hype. We also talk about discipline, values, and the role of hard work in a world obsessed with shortcuts. Because real wealth isn't a paycheck. It's building something meaningful that compounds over time.Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

(0:00) Intro(2:00) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel.(2:45) Start of interview. *Reference to prior episodes with Joe (E1 from '20, E35 from '21, E84 from '23, E123 from '24 and E161 from '25)(4:43) IPO Environment. Reference to paper by Mark Roe: Half the Firms, Double the Profits(11:58) Elon Musk's $1 Trillion Pay Plan "We will pay you an outrageous amount if you achieve preposterous results."(14:40) Delaware's Supreme Court Decision Reversing the Chancery's Rescission of Elon's $56B (now $139B) Tesla comp (20:08) The AI Bubble "We're either in a bubble or a bubble is inevitable."(25:24) OpenAI's Restructuring *more about the restructuring in this article(28:18) Predictions on Elon Musk vs OpenAI trial(32:47) Delaware Exodus "I describe Delaware now as the prostate of corporate law" "it's too soon to make a move from Delaware"(36:16) Evolution of the Caremark Doctrine "the big enchilada"(38:09) Delaware Attorney Fee Awards. *Reference to Joe Grundfest's paper on this topic.(40:34) SEC enforcement focus (41:20) Biggest winner in business in 2025(42:42) Biggest loser in business in 2025(44:11) Biggest business surprise in 2025(44:46) Best corporate governance trend from 2025(46:00) Worst corporate governance trend from 2025(48:28) What's the biggest corporate governance trend to watch out for in 2026(50:00) Thoughts on SEC (and other agencies) having Commissioners from a single party(54:34) The Chicken!Joe Grundfest is W.A. Franke Professor of Law and Business Emeritus at Stanford Law School, and Senior Faculty of the Arthur and Toni Rembe 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

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

Request A Customized Workshop For Your Company⁠: https://www.americannegotiationinstitute.com/services/workshops/ Looking to take your negotiation skills to the next level? Join host Kwame Christian and guest David Johnson, an esteemed legal professional and design thinking expert, as they delve into the world of design thinking applied to negotiations. Gain invaluable insights into this innovative approach and learn how to leverage design thinking principles for success in your own negotiations. Tune in for actionable strategies and a fresh perspective on achieving better results. David Johnson Bio: David Johnson is a respected legal practitioner with extensive courtroom experience and a passion for teaching and research. He teaches at Stanford Law School and the Hasso Plattner School of Design, specializing in the intersection of law and design. With a background in both law and technology, David brings a unique perspective to negotiations, applying design thinking principles to enhance problem-solving and drive impactful outcomes. His expertise and dedication to improving social activism make him a sought-after speaker and author. Visit his personal website for more information on his groundbreaking work. ⁠Negotiation By Design Course ⁠ https://dschool.stanford.edu/classes/negotiation-by-design ⁠Follow Dave on LinkedIn⁠ https://www.linkedin.com/in/djohnsonllc/ ⁠Follow Kwame Christian on LinkedIn⁠: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kwamechristian/ ⁠The Ultimate Negotiation Guide⁠: https://www.americannegotiationinstitute.com/guides/ultimate-negotiation-guide/ ⁠Click here to buy your copy of How To Have Difficult Conversations About Race!⁠: https://www.amazon.com/Have-Difficult-Conversations-About-Race/dp/1637741308/ref=pd_%5B%E2%80%A6%5Df0bc9774-7975-448b-bde1-094cab455adb&pd_rd_i=1637741308&psc=1 ⁠Click here to buy your copy of Finding Confidence in Conflict: How to Negotiate Anything and Live Your Best Life!⁠: https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Confidence-Conflict-Negotiate-Anything/dp/0578413736/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2PSW69L6ABTK&keywords=finding+confidence+in+conflict&qid=1667317257&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjQyIiwicXNhIjoiMC4xNCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMjMifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=finding+confidence+in+conflic%2Caps%2C69&sr=8-1

Request A Customized Workshop For Your Company⁠: https://www.americannegotiationinstitute.com/services/workshops/ Looking to take your negotiation skills to the next level? Join host Kwame Christian and guest David Johnson, an esteemed legal professional and design thinking expert, as they delve into the world of design thinking applied to negotiations. Gain invaluable insights into this innovative approach and learn how to leverage design thinking principles for success in your own negotiations. Tune in for actionable strategies and a fresh perspective on achieving better results. David Johnson Bio: David Johnson is a respected legal practitioner with extensive courtroom experience and a passion for teaching and research. He teaches at Stanford Law School and the Hasso Plattner School of Design, specializing in the intersection of law and design. With a background in both law and technology, David brings a unique perspective to negotiations, applying design thinking principles to enhance problem-solving and drive impactful outcomes. His expertise and dedication to improving social activism make him a sought-after speaker and author. Visit his personal website for more information on his groundbreaking work. ⁠Negotiation By Design Course ⁠ https://dschool.stanford.edu/classes/negotiation-by-design ⁠Follow Dave on LinkedIn⁠ https://www.linkedin.com/in/djohnsonllc/ ⁠Follow Kwame Christian on LinkedIn⁠: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kwamechristian/ ⁠The Ultimate Negotiation Guide⁠: https://www.americannegotiationinstitute.com/guides/ultimate-negotiation-guide/ ⁠Click here to buy your copy of How To Have Difficult Conversations About Race!⁠: https://www.amazon.com/Have-Difficult-Conversations-About-Race/dp/1637741308/ref=pd_%5B%E2%80%A6%5Df0bc9774-7975-448b-bde1-094cab455adb&pd_rd_i=1637741308&psc=1 ⁠Click here to buy your copy of Finding Confidence in Conflict: How to Negotiate Anything and Live Your Best Life!⁠: https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Confidence-Conflict-Negotiate-Anything/dp/0578413736/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2PSW69L6ABTK&keywords=finding+confidence+in+conflict&qid=1667317257&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjQyIiwicXNhIjoiMC4xNCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMjMifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=finding+confidence+in+conflic%2Caps%2C69&sr=8-1

SUMMARY: Guest: Lara Silverman — comedic actress, jazz singer, violinist, author, Stanford Law grad; formerly a federal prosecutor. -Faith roots: Grew up in a large Romanian Christian family (with Syrian Christian heritage); accepted Christ at 7; faith deepened after her aunt's death from cancer. -Calling to law: Loved advocacy and public speaking; passed the bar after intense study; landed her dream role as a federal prosecutor in San Francisco. -Health crisis: Fell acutely ill in week two on the job with a rare, under-researched neurological vertigo disorder; tried ~30–150 therapies and ~38 medications (often worsened symptoms); bedridden for three years on a bedpan; ultimately resigned her post. -Ongoing illness: Continues to experience constant spinning sensations; multiple tentative diagnoses, no definitive cure; learned to walk again despite worsening symptoms when upright. -Spiritual wrestle: Initial confusion turned to seasons of bitterness and anger (more than depression); felt misunderstood by some believers when she sensed God calling her to accept ongoing suffering. -Acceptance and surrender: Believes God spoke that she would not be fully healed on this side of eternity; fasting exposed idols of health, marriage, and career; moved toward surrender and trust. -Meeting Matt: Church acquaintance (youth leader) who reached out during her bedridden years; he had suffered childhood cancer and was later diagnosed with terminal cancer; they formed a deep bond through shared suffering. -Marriage and loss: Married despite her illness and his terminal diagnosis; experienced “joy in grief” through ministry and creativity; Matt died a year later; Lara testifies to God's peace and preparation through the loss. -Joy amid grief: Practiced finding “sprinkles of joy” (comedy clips, music, niece's smile, devotionals); launched The Silverman Show (YouTube: comedy, music, theology); organized jazz fundraisers, including $13K raised for Haiti. -Theology of suffering: *Critiques “prosperity gospel light” in American church; calls for preparing believers to suffer well. *Emphasizes biblical themes: joy in suffering; God's intentional purposes; eternal rewards (e.g., “crown of life”); 2 Corinthians 4:17's “eternal weight of glory.” *Points to Isaiah 61 (double portion/redemption), 1 Peter 1:7 (tested faith), Job-like redemption ultimately fulfilled in eternity. *Cites Helen Roseveare's testimony about trusting God in suffering. -Identity transformation: Early identity tied to achievement and “gold stars”; illness stripped these; learned identity in Christ, not performance; challenged by Matt's loving rebukes about pride and usefulness. -Honest struggles: Jealousy when others receive “basic blessings” (marriage, children, health); wrestled with God's statement “I know what's best for you”; learning to believe God's wisdom without having micro-level reasons. -Church's role: Encourage sound theology of suffering, eternal perspective, and the call to “joy in grief”; avoid equating God's love solely with earthly blessings. -Memoir: Wrote her memoir from bed over eight months, capturing God's “receipts” (journaled answers, provisions, and lessons); aims to comfort sufferers with biblical reasons for suffering and stories of God's nearness. -Hope redefined: Realistic hope is anchored in eternity (John 11:25); freedom from fear of death empowers purposeful living now. -Key scriptures referenced: 2 Corinthians 4:17 (eternal glory) 1 Peter 1:7 (tested genuineness of faith) Isaiah 61 (redemption, double portion) Isaiah 43:19–20 (streams in the wilderness) Romans 8:29 (conformed to Christ) John 11:25 (life beyond death) -Core takeaway: God provides “streams in the desert.” Open your heart to receive and choose joy in the midst of grief; joy and sorrow can coexist, and God will redeem suffering—fully in eternity, and often with foretastes now.   PODCAST INTRO: What happens when the life you planned—brilliant career, healthy body, tidy faith, marriage and children—collides with relentless suffering? For comedian, jazz singer, author, violinist, and Stanford-trained attorney Lara Silverman, that colission became a calling. Lara spent years pursuing her dream of becoming a federal prosecutor—years of academic discipline, devoted goal setting, and passionate pursuit. After graduating from Stanford, she enters the grueling vetting and elimination process of 1000 hopeful lawyers with the goal of making it to the top 3. When she learns that she made it in the top 3 her dream becomes a reality…she is standing at the pinnacle of a major goal in her life. She was accepted as a federal prosecutor and begin the task of fully stepping into that role. Until in her second week on the job, she fell violently ill with what would later be discovered as a rare, unresolved neurological condition that keeps her in a constant state of the world spinning around her. She endures that condition to this day…8 years now, 3 of which left her bedridden, on a bedpan, being cared for and nursed by her parents. Thirty-eight medications failed. Careers, plans, family timelines—all stripped away. In her personal dark valley of multi layered deaths, her testimony is that not only does God meet her there, He has never left her. True to being a trained lawyer, in her effort to make sense of her spinning, crumbling world she uses the Word/Bible to question God's goodness and His fairness demanding that He explain Himself. She's met with firm, steady, unwavering love that consistently engages her pain inviting her from striving to surrender. Through Lara's fasting, God exposed hidden idols—health, marriage, career—not to shame her, but to set her free. Because I think we all know that if we build our lives on things that will fade, change, transition, not to mention the fact that we have no guarantees on anything we risk losing ourselves into despair and ruin. Then came an unlikely gift. As Lara lay in bed, a church acquaintance—Matt Silverman, a brilliant, joy-filled believer battling terminal cancer—began calling to pray and wrestle through theology with her. Friendship became love. They married, held jazz benefit concerts for Haiti, launched a small YouTube channel, and practiced “joy in grief” as a spiritual discipline. Exactly one year later, Matt went home to Jesus. Lara's testimony is not tidy. She speaks frankly about anger, bitterness, jealousy, and the ache of unanswered prayers. Yet she clings to promises many avoid: that suffering refines faith (1 Peter 1), forges intimacy with Christ, prepares us for eternity (2 Corinthians 4), and—even here—can be met with streams in the desert (Isaiah 43). She believes God will redeem every loss, whether in the here and now or in eternity—and that the doctrine of reward, often neglected, gives sturdy hope when the nights are long. Her invitation is simple but not without surrender and therefor difficult: Look for “sprinkles of joy” each day. Refuse to waste your pain—serve others through it. Live now with eternity in view. If you're not afraid to die, you can truly live. Sorrowful, yet always rejoicing. That's Lara's way through the wilderness—and a lifeline for anyone walking it today. In her memoir, Singing Through the Fire, she chronicles all of that's happened, how God shows up, the challenges she's put before Him and vice versa. What does it look like to struggle with God ? Lara provides examples, proof that He doesn't leave even when our faith is weak and ungodly. He holds us up when our faith falters and He sustains us through the most devastating emotional, mental, physical, battles. Let's listen in and find a reason to hope again, to find joy and to be comforted in what can feel like the wilderness. Live Loved and Thrive! Sherrie Pilk   CONNECT WITH LARA: Main Hub: https://linktr.ee/Larap3 Amazon link for her book: https://a.co/d/ayQyB52 Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/lara.palanjian.silverman Instagram handle: @larapalanjian Youtube: https://youtu.be/TDcUeQrbVZk Watch the deeply moving BOOK trailer here:  https://youtu.be/TDcUeQrbVZk Watch the second BOOK trailer here: https://youtube.com/shorts/bO34s0tLYyY?si=uTMALdhOPB6TOCnt RESOURCES PER LARA: Helen Roseveare's testimony: https://youtu.be/VJCCx-qiZ24?si=ANuKzA-A-F6kwEkt Podcast: Keep an eye/ear out for her new podcast: Singing Through Fire w/Lara Silverman BIO: Lara Silverman is a Christian author, lawyer, jazz singer, comedic actress, violinist, and songwriter. She holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School and a B.A. in both Economics and Political Science from UC Berkeley. Before falling seriously ill in 2018, Lara worked for two federal judges and practiced high stakes litigation for three years at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, where she specialized in intellectual property, antitrust, and contract cases of all kinds.   In 2023, Lara co-founded The Silverman Show—a multifaceted comedy, music, and theology show—and released her debut jazz/pop album as her own music producer in February 2024. In September 2024, she debuted as Mrs. Serious in her solo Armenian comedy show online, amassing upwards of 300,000 views on individual videos on Instagram. Lara's writing has been featured in various respected Christian blogs, where her reflections on faith, suffering, and grace have encouraged readers across diverse audiences. Even as she remains mostly bedridden today, she anchors her unwavering hope in God.    

Lara Silverman is a highly accomplished woman. She's a jazz singer, comedic actress, and decorated lawyer with a J.D. from Stanford Law School. Amidst the highs of her success came a devastating curveball: the sudden onset of a neurological disease. She was forced to resign from the prestigious job she'd worked so hard for and left nearly incapacitated.In the aftermath, she wrestled with the Lord. Why had he halted her momentum? Why had he opened the door to her dreams, only to slam it shut? For years, Lara was bedridden, left to sit alone in the dark with just Jesus, her pain and her questions. What happens when God doesn't deliver you, but wants to give you joy in the fire?Purchase Lara's book, "Singing Through Fire: A Memoir of Finding Surprising Joy in Life's Darkest Trials", here.SUPPORT His Heartbeat through Crown of Beauty Internationalhttps://www.crownofbeautyinternational.com/donateCONNECT with His Heartbeat and Crown of Beauty InternationalWebsite// Facebook//InstagramEmail: crownofbeautyinternational@gmail.comConnect with Sue Corl's Instagram//Facebook// WebsitePurchase Sue's Transformational Bible Studies and Devotionals on Amazon!Sue Corl's best-selling books: Crown of Beauty Bible Study, Broken But UndefeatedCrown of Beauty International: EMPOWERING WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD WITH GOD'S TRUTH!

In this episode, Graham Steele, former Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Treasury and current academic fellow at Stanford Law School, discusses the implications of cryptocurrency and blockchain on the central banking functions of government. This is the eighth episode in our 11-part series, Technology vs. Government, featuring former California State Assemblymember Lloyd Levine.About Graham Steele:Graham Steele is an Academic Fellow at Stanford Law School's Rock Center for Corporate Governance. He has extensive experience at the highest levels of financial policy, having served as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where he was responsible for policy on banks, credit unions, insurance, fintech, and financial cybersecurity. Prior to his role at Treasury, he directed the Corporations and Society Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business. His formative policy experience was on Capitol Hill, where he served for nearly eight years on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, including as Chief Counsel for the Democratic Staff, working on the Dodd-Frank Act in response to the 2008 financial crisis.Interviewer:Lloyd Levine (Former California State Assemblymember, UCR School of Public Policy Senior Policy Fellow)Key Discussion Points:History Repeats Itself: Exploring how cryptocurrency echoes past eras of private money creation like the "Free Banking" and "shadow banking" eras, which often led to financial instability and government intervention.Crypto vs. Blockchain: A simple breakdown: cryptocurrency is the digital asset (like Bitcoin), while blockchain is the underlying technology that records the transactions.Public vs. Private Money: Why government-backed money (like the U.S. dollar) has inherent stability and consumer protections that private cryptocurrencies lack.Solving a Real Problem? Analyzing crypto's promise of faster, cheaper payments and greater financial inclusion against its current realities, such as high volatility and reliance on the traditional banking system.A Regulatory Wild West: The challenges of regulating a borderless, often anonymous system, including fraud, "rug pulls," and market manipulation.The Future of Crypto: Will it become a responsible financial tool, remain a niche investment, or continue to pose systemic risks?

In this episode of The Geek in Review, we welcome three powerhouse guests—Cas Laskowski, Taryn Marks, and Kristina (Kris) Niedringhaus—who are charting a bold course for Artificial Intelligence & the Future of Law Libraries. These three recently co-authored a major white paper, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Law Libraries (pdf), which we see as less of a report and more of a call to arms. Together, we explore how law librarians can move from reactive observers of AI's rise to proactive architects shaping its ethical and practical integration across the legal ecosystem.Cas Laskowski, Head of Research Data and Instruction at the University of Arizona College of Law, shares how the release of ChatGPT in 2022 jolted the profession into action. Librarians everywhere were overwhelmed by the flood of information and hype surrounding AI tools. Cas's response was to create a space for collective thinking and planning: the Future of Law Libraries initiative and a series of roundtables designed to bring professionals together for strategic collaboration. One of the paper's most ambitious recommendations—a centralized AI organization for legal information professionals—aims to unify those efforts, coordinate training, and sustain a profession-wide vision. Cas compares the idea to data curation networks that transformed academic libraries by pooling expertise and reducing duplication of effort.Kris Niedringhaus, Associate Dean and Director of the University of South Carolina School of Law Library, takes the conversation into education and training. She makes a compelling case that “AI-ready librarians,” much like “tech-ready lawyers,” need flexible skill-building models that recognize different levels of engagement and expertise. Drawing from the Delta Lawyer model, Kris calls for tiered AI training—ranging from foundational prompt literacy to higher-level data ethics and system design awareness. She also pushes back against the fear surrounding AI in academia, noting that students are often told not to use AI at all. We couldn't agree more with her point that we're doing students a disservice if we don't teach them how to use these tools effectively and responsibly. Law firms now expect graduates to come in with applied AI fluency, and that expectation will only grow.When we turned to Taryn Marks, Associate Director of Research and Instructional Services at Stanford Law School's Robert Crown Law Library, the discussion moved to another key recommendation: building a centralized knowledge hub for AI-related best practices. Taryn describes how librarians are eager to share materials, lesson plans, and policy frameworks, but the current efforts are fragmented. A shared repository would “reduce duplication of effort” and allow ideas to evolve through open collaboration. It's similar to how standardized models like SALI help the legal industry align without giving away anyone's secret sauce. We loved this idea of a commons where librarians, educators, and technologists work together to lift the entire profession.As we explored the broader implications, all three guests agreed that intentionality is key. Cas emphasizes that information architecture—the design of how knowledge is gathered, tagged, and retrieved—is central to AI's success. Kris points to both the promise and peril of automated legal decision-making, warning that “done well, AI can expand access to justice; done poorly, it can amplify bias.” And Taryn envisions a future where legal information professionals are trusted collaborators across the entire lifecycle of data and decision-making.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

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

Dr. Simone Gold is a physician and attorney who founded America's Frontline Doctors, an organization that gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic for advocating alternative treatments, challenging vaccine mandates and lockdowns. She holds an M.D. from Chicago Medical School and a J.D. from Stanford Law School, with a background in emergency medicine and healthcare consulting. Gold was involved in the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol event, resulting in a 60-day prison sentence for obstructing an official proceeding. She now leads GoldCare, a platform focused on doctor-patient relationships and wellness, and authored Selective Persecution and her new book The Plot Against The Kids.Tickets to Cornerstone Forum 26': https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone26/Tickets to the Mashspiel:https://www.showpass.com/mashspiel/Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: SNP@silvergoldbull.comText Grahame: (587) 441-9100Bow Valley Credit UnionBitcoin: www.bowvalleycu.com/en/personal/investing-wealth/bitcoin-gatewayEmail: welcome@BowValleycu.com Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: SNP@prophetriver.comGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500

In this episode of the Great Trials Podcast, host Steve Lowry interviews Nathan Werksman of Merson Law and Sam Martin of Patrick Malone & Associates to dissect their recent $2.3 million medical malpractice verdict in the case Weil v. Dr. Alhindawi. (More details on the case) Guest Bio: Nathan Werksman As a trial attorney at Merson Law PLLC, Nathan Werksman fights for the injured and wronged in catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death litigation and is a leader in the New York legal community. His work on behalf of injured New Yorkers has been featured on Good Morning America and Eyewitness News ABC 7 New York and in The New York Times, The New York Post, and Rolling Stone Magazine. Nathan is very involved in the New York legal community and in making New York a more just place for the injured. He is the Deputy Treasurer of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, is the Chair of the Products Liability Committee at the New York City Bar Association and is on the Executive Committee of the UJA's Young Lawyers Division. He was also selected to serve on the 2024 Supreme Court Independent Judicial Screening Panel, which plays a critical role in selecting the Supreme Court judges in Manhattan. Read Full Bio Sam Martin Sam Martin joins the team at Patrick Malone & Associates having already represented plaintiffs in a variety of cases including individual injuries, discrimination lawsuits, consumer class actions and mass torts. Sam grew up in West Warwick, Rhode Island. He earned a B.A. in Political Science at Yale University. While at Yale, he captained the men's varsity basketball team, and he received the Roosevelt L. Thompson Prize for his dedication to serving his class and community. Sam earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School, where professors awarded him the Gerald Gunther and John Hart Ely Prizes for outstanding performance in classwork, including receiving the top grade in Federal Courts. Sam has been named as a top "40 under 40" lawyer by the National Trial Lawyers. Read Full Bio CONNECT WITH OUR GUESTS: Nathan Werksman on LinkedIn Merson Law, PLLC on Instagram Sam Martin on LinkedIn LISTEN TO PREVIOUS EPISODES & MEET THE TEAM: Great Trials Podcast Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services  Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

In this episode, Christine Chabot of Marquette University Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join to discuss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's termination and the broader legal and constitutional issues it raises, such as the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and the scope of the president's removal power.    Resources Trump v. Wilcox (2025) Collins v. Yellin (2021) Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) Christine Chabot, “Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? An Originalist Argument for Independent Agencies,” Notre Dame Law Review (2020) Michael McConnell, “Opinion: Save the Federal Reserve's independence by splitting the agency,” Washington Post (September 3, 2025) In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders' lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.  Follow Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness on Apple Podcast and Spotify.     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.  Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit. 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

The official history of America's founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The official history of America's founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The official history of America's founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.