Podcasts about Stanford Law School

The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk www.LearningLeader.com The Price of Becoming is a USA Today, LA Times, and Publishers Weekly National Best-Seller! www.LearningLeader.com/Becoming This is brought to you by Insight Global. If you need to hire one person, hire a team of people, or transform your business through Talent or Technical Services, Insight Global's team of 30,000 people around the world has the hustle and grit to deliver. My Guest: Daniel Lubetzky graduated from Stanford Law School. And then declined lucrative job offers to start his own business, only paying himself $24,000 a year for a decade. And then he founded KIND and grew it into a snack brand that Mars later valued at $5 billion dollars. Today he invests full-time on Shark Tank, and he's the son of a Holocaust survivor whose story shaped everything he's built. Find work that gives you energy, purpose, and meaning. If you enjoy what you're doing, you're far more likely to be great at it. And you're already winning, because you get up every morning doing something satisfying. The danger of loving your work is overworking. Daniel did it building PeaceWorks and KIND. You have to pace yourself. His father survived a death march out of Dachau. Twelve and a half when he entered the camp, fifteen and a half during the march. Six feet tall and under 70 pounds, and no shoes. The Nazis were walking prisoners up a mountain to push them off a cliff because they didn't have enough bullets. A snowstorm saved his life. His father, grandfather, and uncle hugged to say goodbye. The snow buried them and formed a kind of igloo that kept them warm through the night. They woke, dug out, and the Nazis were gone. The soldiers who liberated them were Japanese American. The 442nd, the most decorated unit of its size in American history, was made up of men whose own families were being held in internment camps back home. Daniel's family had never seen an Asian person and didn't understand what they were witnessing. Seventy years later, he got to say thank you. A friend called saying they were sitting with a doctor who had a postcard from Larry Lubetzky. That was Daniel's uncle, who had just died. Daniel reconnected with the captain, who had gone on to become a scientist at Harvard, and eventually gave a eulogy at his funeral. The lesson he takes from it isn't perseverance. It's the power of one person to change another person's life. You won't pull off a rescue every day. You can still look someone in the eye at the supermarket. "You have no idea what that person's been going through." Human connection is what pulls people back. At a conference on fighting hate, Daniel heard how young people vulnerable to recruitment were pulled back by ordinary human connection. Being kind in your daily life makes it harder for the people trying to recruit them. There's no such thing as failure or success. Daniel keeps shelves of successes in one office and shelves of failures in another, and now thinks the separation is a mistake. He never would have built KIND without ten years of mistakes at PeaceWorks. PeaceWorks was a college thesis turned into a company. The argument: get neighbors on opposite sides of a conflict doing business together, and you shatter stereotypes, build relationships, and give both sides a stake in each other. He got Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Turks trading with one another. Daniel turned down $86,000 out of Stanford Law to pay himself $24,000. That's what he could afford, and it's what he paid his team. Grit, wit, and fit. Grit is the work ethic and refusing to give up. Wit is the strategy, the creativity to outthink competitors. Fit is whether the product actually matches what people want. Grit alone isn't enough. Do not assume he was invincible. He cried alone in his studio apartment more than once, convinced he'd made a mistake and was wasting his life. He questioned himself multiple times a day. The jerk who broke him was also right. At a trade show, a buyer told him to stop, that he was way too pushy, to give people space and get out of his life. Daniel was 25 and it broke him. Then he reflected and realized the man was correct. Don't be the ultra-passive person watching the world happen. Don't be the person who only pushes. The job is to be persistent enough to win and be loved for it, which is very hard. "I prepare for anything that I'm not prepared for." Daniel loves winging it and hates preparing. But if there's something he doesn't know, he'll put in the work today, tomorrow, and the day after. Active listening takes real energy. Daniel needs an hour to decompress after every interview he conducts. He's blunt that listening isn't his greatest strength, which is exactly why he's leaning into it. His dad was the best interviewer he ever knew, because he was a coach. When Daniel asked him a question, his father would answer with another question and let him find it himself. A great coach or parent doesn't tell you what to do. They help you ask the questions you need to ask yourself. Telling is the easier skill. Kids keep you humble, and that's the point. You need someone in your life who can call you out when you start thinking too much of yourself, whether that's your kids, your spouse, or your team. KIND started because the healthy snack aisle didn't exist. Training for the 2002 New York City Marathon, Daniel's options were food that tasted like astronaut rations or pure indulgence. Nothing was portable, wholesome, and convenient at the same time. KIND was named after his father, who died the year they launched. Everyone who met him described him the same way. He saw his mission in life as bringing smiles to others. The name became the three pillars: kind to your body, kind to your taste buds, kind to the world. They took a vote on whether to quit. Six or seven people around a table, ten hard years behind them, a major account just lost. The choice was one more shot or two months to go find jobs. They all voted to try again. Then KIND launched. Sampling was the inflection point. Daniel had been treating it as a cost. It was an investment. They went from $800 in 2008 to $800,000 in 2009 to $20 million in free product within a few years, which is what let them scale. Sampling only works if the mousetrap is right. If one in ten people like it, you'll lose your shirt. Nine in ten people who tried a KIND bar wanted to buy more. Those people became the ambassadors. Scarcity, gluttony, and resourcefulness. A wasteful culture runs you into the ground. A scarcity mentality preserves every dollar but caps your potential, because everything looks like a cost center. Resourcefulness is the middle: think like an owner, spend less where you can, and invest where it compounds. Nice and kind are not the same thing. "If you're nice, it doesn't cost you. It's easy. You can be weak and nice. But to be kind, you need to be strong." Kindness requires you to be a protagonist. What Daniel looks for in a founder: Integrity. If he doesn't trust them, no amount of upside matters. Someone worth helping. It's going to be a rollercoaster, and he'll be in the trenches with them. Real passion. Enough that he can sense they'll outwork everyone else. You don't find integrity by asking about integrity. You ask other questions and watch how the person performs. Daniel says Barbara Corcoran is the best on the show at reading people this way. The four C's of a builder's mindset: curious, compassionate, creative, and courageous. Daniel credits them with building KIND, the OneVoice Movement, and everything since. Daniel's champagne moment a year from now: the Builders Movement making real progress. His argument is that every industry has a lobby representing it, and the only group without one is the overwhelming majority of citizens who agree with each other on most issues and want problems solved. He wants a movement that holds all parties and all special interests accountable to that majority. A scarcity mindset versus an abundance mindset. Viewing something as a cost instead of viewing it as an investment. This was Daniel's early mistake with Kind bars. He only budgeted $800 a year for samples. He viewed it as a cost. He changed his mind and realized it was an investment. He upped it to $800,000 per year in samples. And eventually to $20 million a year. Scarcity versus abundance. View it as an investment instead of a cost Daniel's 4 C's of a builder's mindset – curiosity, compassion, creativity, and courage for That's how you build both a company and a movement.  The difference between being nice and being kind. Being nice avoids conflict to protect feelings in the moment. Being kind is about being willing to risk the moment, telling the hard truth because you actually care about them. His dad, grandfather, and uncle – Near the end of the war, Roman, his father, and his brother were death-marched out of Dachau toward the mountains, where the guards meant to push them off a cliff. A freak overnight blizzard scattered the guards; by morning they were gone. The men who found the survivors were the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion — the only all–Japanese–American unit in the U.S. Army, many of whose own families were sitting in American internment camps at that very moment. Daniel has said those soldiers showed a tenderness that "had not been seen in 1945." Magic – Daniel taught himself magic as a kid in Mexico City and actually worked as a traveling magician through Europe and the Middle East for the better part of a year. He still performs one magic show a year for his team... And he's said it's the only thing all year he genuinely prepares for. Everything else, he improvises. "My team is always very concerned that I just jump into stuff." A scarcity mindset versus an abundance mindset. Viewing something as a cost instead of viewing it as an investment. This was Daniel's early mistake with Kind bars. He only budgeted $800 a year for samples. He viewed it as a cost. He changed his mind and realized it was an investment. He upped it to $800,000 per year in samples. And eventually to $20 million a year. Scarcity versus abundance. View it as an investment instead of a cost. Reflection Questions Where in your work are you all grit and no wit or fit? What would change if you spent an hour on strategy before your next hundred hours of effort? Think of the harshest feedback you've ever received. Set aside how it was delivered. Was any of it correct, and what did you do with it? Where in your life are you being nice when the situation calls for you to be kind?

The First Amendment is only 45 words long. But more than 200 years and thousands of court decisions later, we're still arguing over a basic question: what do those words mean — and what did they mean to the early Americans who adopted them? To look through history and debate what originalism can — and can't — tell us about the First Amendment's free speech clause, we are joined by:  Jud Campbell, Stanford Law School professor and the author of Natural Rights and the First Amendment and Determining Rights Stephen Solomon, Marjorie Deane Professor of Journalism at New York University, the founding editor of First Amendment Watch, and the author of Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech    Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   02:20 Original meaning and modern First Amendment doctrine 09:12 Would the founders recognize our Constitution today? 16:00 The Alien and Sedition Acts 20:21 How the founding generation practiced free speech 24:35 Can we define "originalism"? 32:05 Representative government and the promise of liberty 45:00 The First Amendment's absolute language 51:36 New York Times v. Sullivan 58:01 Amending the First Amendment 01:04:30 Outro Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@fire.org.  

Stanford's Anne Joseph O'Connell examines who can step in when a top federal position is vacant and what recent court decisions could mean for how those positions are filled. ---- When a top federal position is vacant, someone still has to run the office. But who gets to step in, and what powers can they exercise while the position remains unfilled? Those questions are at the center of recent legal disputes over how the federal government operates when permanent officials are not yet in place. In this episode, Stanford Law School Professor Anne Joseph O'Connell, a leading scholar of administrative law and the federal bureaucracy, joins host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss the rules governing temporary officials and the way federal agencies are organized and staffed. O'Connell and Karlan examine recent disputes over U.S. attorneys and what happens when the usual process for putting a permanent leader in place does not happen quickly. They discuss how courts have interpreted the rules for temporary officials and what those decisions could mean for other federal agencies and future administrations. The conversation also considers how much authority the president has over the people who work for him and where the law draws the line. Links: Anne Joseph O'Connell >>> Stanford Law School page Pulte's Appointment Shows Flaws in the Vacancies Act >>> Stanford Law School page Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Strategy of Picking U.S. Attorneys >>> Stanford Law School page Can the President Appoint Principal Officers Without the Senate? >>> Lawfare page Bureaucracy's Boundaries >>> Lawfare 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) Welcome to Anne Joseph O'Connell (00:01:32) What "Actings" are, and why they matter (00:02:53) The U.S. Attorney job, explained (00:07:09) Three ways to fill a vacant U.S. Attorney seat (00:11:01) The courts say no to post-vacancy "first assistants" (00:12:37) Ripple effects across the federal government (00:14:07) Does this undercut the Unitary Executive? (00:15:24) A legislative fix, and the delegation workaround (00:16:31) Circuit courts shut down delegation (00:18:22) Trump v. Slaughter and the power to fire (00:19:12) The Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights (00:22:26) Where's the line on presidential removal power? (00:27:02) Closing thoughts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Innovation comes in many areas, and compliance professionals need to not only be ready for it but also embrace it. Join Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, as he visits with top innovative minds, thinkers, and creators in the award-winning Innovation in Compliance podcast. In this episode, host Tom visits with Paul F. Welter, co-founder at Bayshore AI. Welter is a German-qualified lawyer whose path into legal innovation began with an early background in software engineering, giving him a rare combination of legal and technical expertise. That experience led him to study how legal reasoning could be automated at Stanford Law School's Codex, and later to co-found Bayshore AI to build LLM-based tools for in-house legal and compliance teams. He believes AI can help scale legal and compliance support because demand far exceeds human capacity, but he expects adoption to happen gradually through copilots, policy chatbots, and targeted workflow automation rather than a sudden transformation. At the same time, he stresses that regulated companies need systems that are transparent, auditable, and able to show how decisions are made, with human oversight remaining essential for higher-risk matters and regulator-facing accountability. Key highlights: AI Legal Reasoning for Embedded Compliance Workflows Auditable Legal Decision Logic from Conventional Programs Customer-Specific Policy Logic with Deterministic Compliance Logic translated into code for reviewable decisions Full-time employee days of manual compliance checks AI copilots, compliance workflows, and decision trails Resources: Paul Welter on LinkedIn Bayshore Website Bayshore on LinkedIn Innovation in Compliance was recently honored as the Number 4 podcast in Risk Management by 1,000,000 Podcasts

If you think AI will replace deal lawyers, this conversation will change your mind, and it might change how you choose counsel. I sit down with Conrad Everhard and Leonard “Lenny” Nuara from Flatiron Law Group (https://flatironlaw.ai), two former Big Law partners who built a new-model boutique designed for high-end M&A, private equity, venture capital, and technology commercialization without the traditional billable-hour leverage game.We get specific about what makes fixed-fee legal services work at the top of the market: a different labor model, a distributed firm structure, and proprietary legal technology that turns diligence into clean, reusable deal data. Lenny walks through Deal Driver, their complex transaction management platform, including clause-level extraction, narrowly scoped AI agents, and “trust but verify” reports that link straight back to source documents. Conrad explains why this is more than efficiency; it becomes a competitive moat that can improve both pricing and quality.We also dig into training and the future of the junior associate. Deal Mentor, built with Stanford Law School, uses AI-driven negotiation simulation to give young lawyers realistic practice without risking a live transaction. And we close with a warning every legal tech buyer should hear: the monoculture trap, where legal AI regresses to the mean, often ignores things like the client's leverage (or lack thereof), and produces markups that look smart but can blow up a deal.Subscribe for more candid conversations on legal tech, AI in law firms, and the business models reshaping legal services. If you found this useful, share it and leave a review.

Today's guest is Hon. Lise Pearlman (ret.), a former California trial lawyer and first Presiding Judge of the California State Bar Court. Following her retirement from the bench, Judge Pearlman has become a best-selling author and nationally recognized speaker on famous 20th century trials whose books have won multiple awards in the categories of law, U.S. History, and multicultural nonfiction. In this episode, Alon and Judge Pearlman discuss her book With Justice for Some: Politically Charged Criminal Trials of the Early 20th Century That Helped Shape Today's America, and a few of the significant cases detailed within – the murder trial of Black Panthers founder Huey Newton, the Scottsboro Boys, and Sacco and Vanzetti – and delve into the injustices surrounding each trial and how they have impacted the American legal system. Full bio Hon. Lise Pearlman (ret.) was the first Presiding Judge of the California State Bar Court and a former California trial lawyer. Following her retirement from the bench, Judge Pearlman has become a best-selling author and nationally recognized speaker on famous 20th century trials whose books have won multiple awards in the categories of law, U.S. History, and multicultural nonfiction. Pearlman's latest book, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No.1 — The Man Who Got Away was Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Criminal Evidence in December 2021. Judge Pearlman is also the author of four other critically-acclaimed history books published by Regent Press: Call Me Phaedra: The Life and Times of Movement Lawyer Fay Stender, winner of the 2018 International Book Award for biographies; With Justice for Some: Politically Charged Criminal Trials of the Early 20th Century That Helped Shape Today's America (2017) [highly recommended for “anyone interested in history, courtroom drama or criminal justice”]; The Sky's the Limit: People v. Newton: The REAL Trial of the 20th Century? (2012); and American Justice on Trial: People v. Newton (2016) which is also a companion to the nonprofit documentary of the same name which won a Civil Rights award from the Berkeley Film Foundation and had its world premiere in April 2022 at the San Francisco International Film Festival. Pearlman serves as its Producer. (See: www.justicemovie.com) In 2015 Pearlman had a cameo appearance in Director Stanley Nelson's PBS acclaimed documentary, The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution as the country's leading expert on the 1968 Huey Newton Trial that transformed the American “jury of one's peers” from the traditional 12 white men to the diverse panels Americans often take for granted today. Pearlman was in the first class of undergraduates at Yale University to include women (1971). After moving to the California Bay Area, Pearlman graduated Order of the Coif from Berkeley Law (1974), clerked for California Chief Justice Donald Wright and was a Teaching Fellow at Stanford Law School before joining a San Francisco Bay Area firm as a litigator where she was named managing partner in 1984–the first established firm in California headed by a woman. In 1989, Pearlman was selected by the California Supreme Court as the first Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court. After retiring, Judge Pearlman served as mediator and arbitrator with Alternative Resolution Centers, Chair of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission, President of Women Lawyers of Alameda County and on the Board of California Women Lawyers. Judge Pearlman is married to San Francisco bankruptcy lawyer Peter Benvenutti. They have three grown daughters and four grandchildren. One of her daughters, Jamie Benvenutti, served as the chief research assistant for Pearlman's book on the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Join the leadership of the Human Rights and Immigration Subcommittee of the D.C. Bar's International Law Community as it examines the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized communities, in particular, already-vulnerable women whose livelihoods depend upon increasingly threatened habitats.During the past five decades, Royal Bengal tigers have killed at least 3,000 men and women who live in the Sundarbans in India.  These deaths have had particularly serious consequences for so-called “Tiger Widows” whose husbands were killed by tigers while venturing into the forest to hunt or fish.  We will learn about these women's remarkable resilience along with a recent landmark court victory that recognizes their rights under Indian law.  Additionally, we will discuss how documentary films may serve as a catalyst for social and legal change.  Speakers:   Shalini Iyengar, a lawyer specializing in environmental law and human rights and currently a doctoral candidate in anthropology at Yale, and Kaustuv Mukherjee, an award-winning filmmaker whose first feature-length documentary, The Tiger Widows, centers the stories of a community of women, largely widows, who live in the Sundarbans in West Bengal, India. The world's largest contiguous mangrove forest, the Sundarbans forest is located in a delta region that spans India and Bangladesh. Additional background on the speakers:Shalini Iyengar is a lawyer and doctoral candidate in Anthropology at Yale University. Her research interests include the political ecology of law-making, fisheries, citizenship, and social movements. Shalini's dissertation explores the history of legal activism among fishers in India since the colonial era. She earned her law degree from the National Law School of India University and advanced degrees in human rights and law and society from Oxford University and Stanford Law School. Kaustuv Mukherjee is an award-winning independent filmmaker who has written, directed, and produced 12 short films. His work has received critical recognition and numerous awards at various film festivals. His last film, "REVERSE," was selected for 14 festivals (including two Academy Award-Qualifying Festivals: the Tasveer Film Festival and the Bengaluru International Short Film Festival) and won one best short animation award. Kaustuv's stories center marginalized people seeking social justice.  Additional links:Film Trailer: https://vimeo.com/1208146038/7473c6c163?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ciWebsite: The Tiger Widows - One Paper Boat FilmsPlease note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

Former state solicitors general Michael Mongan and Kevin Gallagher discuss the evolving role of state solicitors general and how states work together to shape legal battles before the Supreme Court. --- When states go to court, the battles are not always divided along party lines. State solicitors general often work across state lines to defend shared interests, coordinate legal strategy, and help shape cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In this episode, former California Solicitor General Michael Mongan, JD '06 (BA '01), and former Virginia Solicitor General Kevin Gallagher, now partners at WilmerHale, join podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the role of state solicitors general has evolved. They discuss multistate litigation, bipartisan coalitions, and how states can work together when their legal interests align. Mongan explains that bipartisan cooperation often happens when “they share sovereign interests as states and those interests are genuinely threatened.” Michael Mongan  >>> WilmerHale Page Kevin Gallagher  >>>  WilmerHale Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters 00:00 Introduction 03:03 What does a State Solicitor General actually do?  04:24 Independence from the Governor  06:10 Who speaks for the state?  09:22 How Virginia united every state  12:44 Where red and blue states actually agree  15:12 The mechanics of building a multistate coalition  17:06 Avoiding duplicate briefs: who writes first?  19:53 From public service to a state AG private practice  20:55 Why firms are racing to build state AG expertise  24:57 Favorite cases 28:44 Closing  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

These days, AI is everywhere, and it's increasingly hard to separate the gains from the slop. With that in mind, we're re-releasing my conversation with Stanford Law professor Daniel Ho on the future of AI and the law. When we look for applications where AI can deliver measurable benefit, the legal profession stands out, both for its potential gains in efficiency and equity, and for how much is at stake if we get it wrong. Dan's research — from using AI to identify racist property covenants buried in county deed records, to mapping obsolete regulations that waste thousands of hours of government time — shows what's possible when the technology is applied with rigor and purpose. If you're curious about how AI can serve both justice and good governance, this one is well worth another listen. Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu. Episode Reference Links: Stanford Profile: Dan Ho Connect With Us: Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything Website Connect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / Mastodon Connect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Chapters: (00:00:00) Introduction Russ Altman introduces guest Dan Ho, a professor of law, political science, and computer science at Stanford University. (00:02:19) Path into Legal AI How Ho's background shaped his interest in law, and technology. (00:03:35) What Lawyers Do What makes law a complex domain for AI. (00:05:28) Legal Hallucinations When AI  performs well and when it fails.  (00:07:52) Searching Legal Records in California How AI can help identify outdated, harmful, or legally important material. (00:10:28) Scaling Redaction How a model accelerated a process that overwhelmed county recorder offices. (00:13:04) Legal Reform at Scale How AI has supported legal reform by scanning massive bodies of law. (00:15:02) STARA & The City of San Francisco How AI was used to go through San Francisco's code and clean up reporting. (00:20:53) Outdated Obligations How “regulatory sludge” takes the time & resources of the public service (00:25:02) Open vs. Closed AI The differences and associated risks of the different AI systems. (00:30:58) Legal Chatbots Why legal chatbots are promising but risky. (00:33:42) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

Acclaimed debut novelist Austin Taylor spoke with us about the pressure cooker of Harvard life, studying AI law in the heart of Silicon Valley, and the inspiration behind her debut set in the biotech startup world of NOTES ON INFINITY. Austin Taylor graduated from Harvard University in 2021 with a joint degree in Chemistry and English. She is currently pursuing a JD at Stanford Law School as a Knight-Hennessy Scholar, with a focus on generative AI, copyright, and authorship. Her debut novel, Notes on Infinity, was named an Oprah Daily “Best Summer Read,” a Zibby Owens' “Summer Read,” a Goodreads “Hottest Debut of 2025,” and is inspired in part by her undergraduate studies, peers, and lab work in Harvard's chemistry department. Booklist wrote of the book, "With a trajectory that echoes that of Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos, Taylor's debut provides an insider's glimpse into the high-stakes Ivy League climate and the potentially devastating personal consequences for those caught up in ambition beyond their abilities." Austin is also a private pilot, a registered Maine guide, and a bassist. [Discover The Writer Files Extra: Get 'The Writer Files' Podcast Delivered Straight to Your Inbox at writerfiles.fm] [If you're a fan of The Writer Files, please click FOLLOW to automatically see new interviews. And drop us a rating or a review wherever you listen] In this file Austin Taylor, Milena, and I discussed: What it was like to grow up on a dairy farm in Maine Writing her debut novel during her gap year How The Social Network helped her capture the "momentum and excitement” of startup life Her morning ritual and daily word counts Why bad writing days are "almost always because [she's] not reading enough" good stuff Balancing law school and writing her sophomore novel And a lot more! Show Notes: ElevenReader is a new, award-winning audio app for iOS, Android, Web Get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at square.com/go/files! #squarepod austintaylorwrites.com Notes on Infinity: A Novel by Austin Taylor Austin Taylor on Instagram⁠ Milena Gonzalez | Writer | Reader | Book Reviewer diary_of_a_book_babe on Instagram Kelton Reid Instagram Kelton Reid on Twitter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Law professor Julian Nyarko has drawn attention for his studies using large language models to investigate and improve legal education and explore AI's biases. He hopes AI can become a reliable, always-on legal learning and assistance tool to lower costs and expand access to legal services. In one recent study, he asked a group of law professors to evaluate written answers to student questions. Three-quarters of the time, the professors preferred AI-generated answers to those of their human colleagues. “AI is good at law,” Nyarko says, the challenge now is to use it most effectively, he tells host Russ Altman in this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything podcast. Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu. Episode Reference Links: Stanford Profile:Julian Nyarko Connect With Us: Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything Website Connect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / Mastodon Connect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Chapters: (00:00:00) Introduction Russ Altman introduces guest Julian Nyarko, a professor of law at Stanford University. (00:02:31) Path into AI and Law How Nyarko's early work led him to legal AI. (00:05:03) Law, Economics, and Computation How Nyarko's training, methods, and self-taught coding shaped his research. (00:07:23) Building the LIFT Lab Why a law professor started a lab. (00:09:06) Evaluating Legal AI How AI raises fundamental questions about what counts as good lawyering. (00:10:22) Improving Legal Services Using AI to work faster, reduce errors, and make informed decisions. (00:10:57) Rethinking Legal Education How AI may change the way future lawyers learn  (00:11:51) AI in Office Hours How AI answers law students' questions compared with human professors. (00:15:18) Surprising Results Why AI answers were often preferred  (00:16:16) What the Study Shows The findings support AI tutoring, but don't prove AI improves learning. (00:18:48) Limits of One-Shot Answers Why real teaching often depends on dialogue, clarification, and productive struggle. (00:20:59) AI for Social Science How AI can become both an object of study and a tool. (00:22:43) Research Agents Using AI to test claims and make previously impossible research scalable. (00:24:51) Agentic AI in the Lab How Socratic dialogue with AI can sharpen research ideas. (00:26:07) Fairness and Bias How computational tools can be audited for bias and used to audit decision-making. (00:27:29) Discrimination in Models Exploring bias and how it can be reduced. (00:30:16) Disparate Impact How policies and systems disadvantage groups even without explicit intent. (00:32:53) From Evidence to Policy How Nyarko's lab works with stakeholders to surface disparities. (00:34:49) Future In a Minute Rapid-fire Q&A: justice, talent, and the future of legal AI. (00:36:57) Conclusion   Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

In this episode of Ruled by Reason, guest host Roger Noll, Professor of Economics Emeritus at Stanford University and a member of the Jerry S. Cohen Award Selection Committee, sits down with Mark Lemley, the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. The two discuss Professor Lemley's award-winning article, Anticompetitive Directors, 125 Colum. L. Rev. 1939 (2025), co-authored with Professor Rory Van Loo of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Lane Miles, a 2025 graduate of Stanford Law School. The article won the 24th Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award, presented on June 4 at AAI's 2026 Annual Policy Conference, Competition Policy, Journalism, and the Promotion of Truth Regarding Public Matters. The article provides the first large-scale analysis of interlocking directorates involving both public and private companies and finds 2,309 instances of individuals sitting on the boards of companies that are direct competitors. It meaningfully advances our understanding of the scope and competitive significance of interlocking boards, while proposing legal and structural reforms to address the problem.

Larry Kramer has been President and Vice Chancellor of the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 April 2024.He served as President of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation from 2012 to 2024. Under his leadership, the foundation significantly adapted its strategies to meet changing circumstances and seize new opportunities, including new efforts to respond to pressing and timely challenges related to democracy, economics, climate change, and racial justice.Larry spent most of his career in the academy, most recently as the 15th Dean of Stanford Law School, a position he assumed in 2004. During his tenure, he spearheaded significant educational reforms. He pioneered a new model of multidisciplinary legal studies, while growing the clinical education program, incorporating a public service ethos, and enlarging the physical campus.Previously, Larry researched and taught at the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan, and New York University, where he served as Associate Dean for Research and Academics and Russell D. Niles Professor of Law. He clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Henry J. Friendly of the Second Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., following his education. Larry holds an A.B. in Psychology and Religious Studies from Brown University and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.Larry's teaching and scholarly interests include American legal history, constitutional law, federalism, separation of powers, the federal courts, conflict of laws, and civil procedure. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.Larry is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the American Philosophical Society. He serves as board chair of iCivics and has been a director on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations, including the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the ClimateWorks Foundation, the Independent Sector, and Equal Justice Works. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Nominated to the Supreme CourtOn July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan announced that he was nominating Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court of the United States. If confirmed, she would become the first woman ever to serve on the Court in its then-191-year history. The Senate confirmed her later that summer by a vote of 99 to 0, and she took her seat in September 1981.O'Connor's path to the Court was, in its own way, a commentary on the barriers women faced in the legal profession. She had graduated near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952—ahead of, among others, William Rehnquist, who would one day be her Chief Justice—and yet law firms in California would not hire her as a lawyer. One offered her a job as a legal secretary. She built her career instead in public service and in Arizona politics, eventually rising to become the majority leader of the Arizona state senate, the first woman in the country to hold such a post, before moving to the bench as a state judge. When Reagan, who had promised during his campaign to appoint a woman to the Court, chose her, he was reaching past the federal appellate judiciary—which had almost no women on it—into state government.On the Court, O'Connor became famous as a pragmatic, case-by-case decision-maker who resisted sweeping rules, and for roughly a quarter century she sat at the ideological center, casting decisive votes on abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, religion, and the limits of federal power. Her approach frustrated those who wanted bright-line doctrines from either side, but it made her, for a generation, arguably the most powerful jurist in the country—the swing vote whose reasoning lower courts and litigants had to anticipate.Her nomination matters in legal history not only because it broke a barrier that had stood since 1789, but because of what came after it. Once one woman had sat on the Court and served with distinction, the question was no longer whether a woman could do the job but why it had taken so long. O'Connor herself was characteristically understated about the symbolism, insisting that she wanted to be judged on the quality of her arguments rather than her place in history. But the two are not really separable. The fact that a brilliant lawyer could be turned away from every firm that interviewed her, and then go on to become the deciding vote on the highest court in the land, is a reminder of how much talent the profession wasted for how long—and of how quickly a barrier that seems permanent can fall once someone is finally allowed through it.Meta has disclosed that four states are seeking as much as $1.4 trillion in penalties heading into an August trial over claims that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to addict young users. The figure—close to Meta's entire market value of around $1.5 trillion—came out in a court filing in which Meta argued the number is wildly excessive and, in its words, “has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.”California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are among the states suing Meta, alleging that the company engineered features to keep teenagers compulsively engaged—infinite scroll, autoplay, manipulative notifications—while publicly downplaying the harm to young users' mental health. The case is set for trial in Oakland in August. The eye-popping penalty number comes from how state consumer-protection laws are structured: they typically set a fixed statutory fine per violation, and the states arrive at $1.4 trillion by multiplying that per-violation fine by an enormous number of alleged violations, one for roughly every affected young user, across years of conduct.Think about how that math works and why it produces such a staggering figure. If a law says you owe, say, a few thousand dollars per violation, that sounds modest—until the “violations” are counted in the tens or hundreds of millions because each affected teenager, each exposure, is its own violation. Statutes written to punish a corner store for mislabeling a product start to generate astronomical numbers when applied to a platform that touches nearly every teenager in a state. That's the tension at the heart of this filing: the states say they're simply applying the law as written, and Meta says applying it that way produces a number no legislature could possibly have intended.The significance here isn't really the trillion-dollar headline, which almost no one expects to be the actual outcome. It's what the fight over the number reveals. Penalty calculations like this are leverage—they shape settlement negotiations and signal how seriously a court might treat the underlying conduct. The case is one of the most important tests yet of whether decades-old consumer-protection statutes can be turned against the design choices of social media platforms, and whether “we built it to be addictive” can be treated as a deceptive or unfair business practice. However the penalty question resolves, the theory of liability is the thing to watch.Meta says US states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties in August youth safety trial | ReutersA coalition of twenty-two Democratic state attorneys general has come out against the Trump administration's plan to impose tariffs of up to 12.5% on 59 countries and the European Union, tariffs the administration justifies as a response to trade in goods made with forced labor. The attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, call the levies unlawful and describe them as a pretext to resurrect tariff authority the Supreme Court has already rejected.Tariffs are taxes on imports, and the Constitution gives the power to levy taxes primarily to Congress. Presidents can impose tariffs, but only when Congress has delegated them that authority through a specific statute, and each of those statutes comes with its own conditions and limits. Earlier tariffs from this administration were struck down when courts found the President had stretched his delegated power past what the law allowed. Now the administration is invoking forced-labor concerns as the legal basis for a new round. The Democratic attorneys general argue that this is the same overreach in a new costume—that dressing tariffs up as a human-rights measure doesn't cure the underlying problem, which is that the President is claiming a taxing power Congress never handed him.Consider the practical reach of what's proposed. The attorneys general say these tariffs would hit roughly 99% of imports. A tariff, whatever its stated purpose, is ultimately paid by importers and passed along to consumers in higher prices. So the debate isn't only an abstract argument about the separation of powers—it's about who gets to decide to raise the cost of nearly everything Americans buy from abroad, and whether that decision belongs to one person in the executive branch or to Congress. The forced-labor rationale is genuinely important on its own terms; forced labor in global supply chains is a real and serious problem. But the attorneys general are making a structural point: even a good goal doesn't authorize a power the law doesn't grant.The significance is that this is another front in an ongoing constitutional struggle over how far presidential trade power extends. The attorneys general are signaling they will litigate, and the courts have already shown, in striking down the earlier tariffs, that they are willing to police the boundary. Watch for whether this dispute follows the same path to the Supreme Court, because the answer will shape not just this set of tariffs but how much unilateral economic power any president can claim by pointing to a sufficiently sympathetic justification.Democratic AGs oppose Trump plan to impose tariffs on forced labor concerns | ReutersThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has abandoned an unusual set of trademark applications it had filed to register the phrase “Board of Peace” on behalf of President Trump, walking away from the filings after sharp criticism from congressional Democrats and questions about whether the agency had any legal authority to file them in the first place. The government filed an express abandonment of the applications, ending what one member of Congress called an unlawful venture.A trademark protects a brand—a word or logo used to identify the source of goods or services in commerce. Normally, a person or company files their own application, or has their lawyer file it for them. What happened here is that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, the head of the very agency that examines and grants trademarks, filed applications to register “Board of Peace” on the President's behalf. And that raised an immediate legal problem: the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, generally forbids filing an application on behalf of another person unless you are that person's attorney—and the Director specifically was not acting as Trump's lawyer.Think about why that rule exists and why the arrangement looked so troubling. The agency that decides who gets a trademark is supposed to be a neutral referee. When the head of that agency personally files an application for the President, the referee has stepped onto the field to play for one team. Even setting aside the specific statutory bar, it collapses the distinction between the government official who grants rights and the private party who receives them. Critics questioned not just the legality but the transparency of the whole exercise—who authorized it, on what authority, and why the trademark office was branding a presidential initiative at all.The significance is less about the phrase “Board of Peace” and more about the guardrails around a powerful administrative agency. Trademark law has technical rules about who may file and on whose behalf, and those rules are part of what keeps the system credible. The abandonment—prompted by oversight from the House Judiciary Committee's Democrats—shows those guardrails still functioning: an irregular filing was flagged, its legal basis questioned, and the agency backed down before a court had to intervene. It's a small episode in the scheme of things, but a clean illustration of how ordinary statutory limits and legislative oversight can check an official who reaches beyond his role.US trademark office abandons ‘Board of Peace' branding rights applications | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on the administration's threat to hit countries that have digital services taxes with 100% tariffs. My argument, in short, is that this is an ill-advised response—it isn't really a defense of the U.S. tax system at all, but an attempt to use consumer-funded trade pain to shield big tech from foreign tax bills.Let me set up the problem. A digital services tax, or DST, is a levy some foreign governments impose on the local digital revenue of companies like Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Amazon, or Netflix. These firms can earn enormous revenue from users in a country without ever having the kind of physical presence that the traditional international tax system was built to tax. Netflix can stream into a jurisdiction, pull revenue out of it, and never owe local tax. So foreign governments invented DSTs to capture some of that. The U.S. response, apparently, is to threaten tariffs on that country's completely unrelated goods until the tax goes away. The logic is that if Google has to pay France a modest tax on its digital revenue, someone in Cleveland might have to pay more for their champagne.I want to be fair to both sides here, because I actually think both have a point. DSTs genuinely deserve criticism—they're blunt instruments that tax gross revenue rather than profit, which means they can overtax low-margin business, and they're often designed with revenue thresholds conveniently set to catch every big U.S. tech firm while sparing domestic companies. So the U.S. complaint that these taxes are tailored to skim revenue from American firms is not baseless. But foreign governments also have a legitimate grievance: the old international tax rules really do struggle to tax digital businesses that earn a fortune from local users without setting foot in the country.Here's where I think the tariff response falls apart. A blanket 100% tariff doesn't fix any of a DST's design flaws. It doesn't determine where digital value is actually created, it doesn't allocate taxing rights, and it doesn't even fall on the foreign government. Tariffs are paid by importers, and most of that cost gets passed along to consumers. With last year's tariffs, as much as ninety percent of the economic burden landed on domestic firms and consumers. So think about how strange this is as tax policy: the companies facing the foreign tax are the largest and richest technology firms in the world, but the companies and consumers who'd actually feel the tariff are unrelated domestic players. No one is literally cutting Meta a reimbursement check, but the effect is the same—American consumers and importers become the leverage used to protect Silicon Valley from foreign tax exposure.And the bilateral approach has a nasty structural problem. The administration seems emboldened by the Canada episode—Canada moved to collect its DST, the U.S. threatened trade consequences, and Canada backed down. The apparent lesson the administration drew is that a big enough threat can make any foreign tax disappear. But if the U.S. treats tariff threats as a standing veto over other countries' tax policy, then every DST becomes a bilateral confrontation—France, Spain, Italy, the UK, one hostage negotiation after another—and it invites everyone else to adopt the same playbook the moment U.S. firms need something from them.So what I argue for instead is a binding, multilateral framework, and I lay out three pieces it would need. First, countries with DSTs agree to repeal them once a replacement is in place—the goal is to swap the ad hoc levies for something coherent, not stack a new rule on top of them. Second, market jurisdictions get, and help design, a predictable formula for their share of taxing rights over digital multinationals—something administrable and tied to a defensible theory of where digital profits are earned. And third, the U.S. keeps its powder dry: retaliation stays in reserve for countries that refuse the framework or discriminate against U.S. firms, applied with due process and proportionality, not as a one-size-fits-all tariff bazooka every time a foreign tax annoys Silicon Valley. Until we build that kind of system, the DST fight is just going to keep coming back.US Tariff Threat Is an Ill-Advised Digital Services Tax Reaction | Bloomberg Tax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz discuss their proposal to require leading AI firms to pay taxes in equity, reshaping how the gains from AI are distributed --- Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the economy, but two Stanford Law alumni argue that existing tax frameworks are failing to capture—or fairly distribute—the value it generates. Jeremy Bearer-Friend, JD '14, a professor at George Washington University Law School, and Sarah Polcz, JSM '12, JSD '20, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, join co-host Professor Richard Thompson Ford to discuss a proposal that would require leading AI companies to pay a portion of their taxes in equity rather than cash, with those shares placed into a public trust, and their work with U.S. Senate members to make this happen. The conversation explores a central question: If AI was built on vast amounts of human-generated text, images, and creative work, who is entitled to share in the wealth it produces? Bearer-Friend and Polcz connect their proposal to broader concerns about wealth concentration and whether the gains from AI will flow to a narrow class of tech executives and investors—or to the public at large. The episode also examines how an equity-based tax could work in practice, including questions of governance, political insulation, and the mechanics of a sovereign wealth fund, and what it would mean to give the public a direct stake in the companies shaping the future of artificial intelligence. Links: Jeremy Bearer-Friend  >>> GW Law School page Sarah Polcz  >>> UC Davis School of Law page “Sharing the Algorithm: The Tax Solution to Generative AI” >>> Columbia Journal of Tax Law page American AI Wealth Fund Bill >>> PDF “Everyone Wants to Tax A.I. The Big Disagreement: How?” >>> NY Times DealBook page “Don't laugh off Bernie Sanders' communist AI-heist attempt — young voters are falling for it” >>> New York Post 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) A Tax Paid in Stock (00:02:14) IP, Inequality, and the AI Boom (00:05:56) Why the Public Deserves an Equity Stake (00:11:58) How the Tax Would Actually Work—Stock, Rates, and Governance (00:16:59) Sanders, Trump, and a Race to Co-opt the Idea (00:21:06) Objections, Safeguards, and the Road Ahead Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today on the program, a trip into the archive and a return to Episode 780, my conversation with Chantal V. Johnson, author of the debut novel Post-Traumatic (Little, Brown). Air date: July 6, 2022. Chantal V. Johnson is an attorney and writer whose fiction explores gender, personality, friendship, and all forms of art, but particularly music. Her debut novel, Post-Traumatic, was long-listed for the Center for Fiction First Novel Prize and selected as a New York Public Library book club pick. She has received fellowships and support from The Center for Fiction, the Djerassi Resident Artists Program, the Kimmel Harding Nelson Center for the Arts, and the Arizona Commission on the Arts. Chantal graduated from Stanford Law School and worked as a tenant lawyer for several years. *** Today's episode is brought to you by Rula. Thousands of people are already using Rula to get affordable, high-quality therapy that's actually covered by insurance. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.rula.com/otherppl⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get started. *** ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Otherppl with Brad Listi⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is a weekly podcast featuring in-depth interviews with today's leading writers. Available where podcasts are available: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, etc. Get ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠How to Write a Novel,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ the debut audio course from DeepDive. 50+ hours of never-before-heard insight, inspiration, and instruction from dozens of today's most celebrated contemporary authors. Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Brad's email newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support the show on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email the show: letters [at] otherppl [dot] com The podcast is a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠proud affiliate partner of Bookshop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, working to support local, independent bookstores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court's 2025-26 term has been punctuated with some high-stakes cases: birthright citizenship, voting rights, presidential powers and consequential civil rights cases. Some of the most anticipated and significant cases have yet to be decided. As the justices make the final sprint to the end of the term in early July, we take stock of how the Supreme Court evolved from the weakest branch of government to the powerhouse arbiter it is today. This episode originally aired in 2020.Guests:Larry Kramer, former dean of Stanford Law School and author of The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial ReviewRachel Shelden, associate professor of History and director of the George and Ann Richards Civil War Era Center at Penn State University, and author of The Political Supreme CourtLucas Powe Jr., professor of Law and Government at the University of TexasSupport shows like Throughline with NPR+. Sign up today at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Courts & The Administration: Legal Insights from Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Anne P. Mitchell is an attorney, and law professor and dean emeritus.  A graduate of Stanford Law School, she has had a a storied career first as one of the first two attorneys in the United States advocating for children to have an ongoing relationship with their fathers after the disuniting of the family, and then as the first anti-spam lawyer in the U.S., and going on to write part of our Federal anti-spam law.In January of 2025 she started battling the misinformation on social media around the actions of this administration, and has made it her mission to share, in plain English, the facts and the truth about this administration's legal shenanigans with her more than 400,000 followers on social media.Links:https://notesfromthefront.fyi/https://www.instagram.com/annepmitchellesq/Tags:podcast for creatives,creative podcast,podcast creator interviews,professional podcast,creative podcasts,podcast host interviews,creative podcast ideas,AttorneyCivil LitigatorLawLaw & LegalLawyerLegalLitigationPoliticsProfessorPublic PolicySupport PEG by checking out our Sponsors:Download and use Newsly for free now from www.newsly.me or from the link in the description, and use promo code “GHOST” and receive a 1-month free premium subscription.The best tool for getting podcast guests:https://podmatch.com/signup/phantomelectricghostSubscribe to our Instagram for exclusive content:https://www.instagram.com/expansive_sound_experiments/Subscribe to our YouTube https://youtube.com/@phantomelectricghost?si=rEyT56WQvDsAoRprRSShttps://anchor.fm/s/3b31908/podcast/rssSubstackhttps://substack.com/@phantomelectricghost?utm_source=edit-profile-page

00:00:00 — What new can be said about the Declaration at 250? McConnell opens with the core question and frames 250 years of interpretation, celebration, and controversy. 00:00:58 — The big themes the series will test: democracy, critiques, duties, and constitutional influence A preview of the agenda: what makes democracies flourish, modern challenges to founding principles, rights versus duties, and the Declaration's impact on state constitutions and government structure. 00:01:19 — The forward-looking questions: law, AI, and America's “promissory note” The trailer highlights upcoming debates over whether the Declaration is law, how it applies to artificial intelligence, and its continuing moral force from Lincoln to MLK.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

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

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

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