Podcasts about supreme court litigation clinic

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a reverse discrimination case when the justices return to the bench at the end of the month.  A heterosexual woman is asking the court to revive her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services where she's worked since 2004 after the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said she hadn't shown the "background circumstances" necessary to take her case to trial. The court didn't just ask for a little bit more evidence, it asked for a lot more, said Xiao Wang, director of the University of Virginia's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who's representing Marlean Ames in her case. Wang and co-counsel Edward Gilbert join Cases and Controversies to discuss the case and what's at stake. Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about Trump's impending trade war and look at the legal doctrine that could stand in the way of his planned tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada.  Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr Produce: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Pamela Karlan, experienced advocate and co-director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, joins Kate and Leah to break down just how exceptional Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is at her job. Then, all three hosts speak with Madiba K. Dennie about her book, The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

The Supreme Court's latest term was marked by decisions of enormous consequence. However, the way the Court has communicated about these rulings far undersells the gravity they carry.While “expressing itself in extremely modest terms,” Professor Jeffrey Fisher says, the current Supreme Court has “[handed] down decisions that have enormously consequential effects for our democracy, people's rights, and everything in between.” He and Assistant Professor Easha Anand, co-directors of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, agree that these recent decisions could reshape American law and politics for years to come.In this episode of Stanford Legal with host Pam Karlan, Fisher, and Anand take a critical look at recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion, gun rights, tech platforms, and the power of federal agencies, examining the Court's evolving approach and considering the potential long-term impacts on American democracy and the rule of law.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Jeff Fisher >>> Stanford Law School PageEasha Anand >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction to the Supreme Court Term and Key CasesPam Karlan is joined by Professors Jeff Fisher and Easha Anand to discuss the past term at the Supreme Court, constitutional law and Supreme Court practice, highlighting key cases and themes from the term. They explore how the court's conservative majority shapes the docket and the role of Justices Barrett and Jackson in developing their judicial voices.(00:06:56) Chapter 2: High-Profile Cases: Guns, Abortion, and Administrative LawExamine major cases, including gun rights in Rahimi v. United States and Cargill v. Garland, abortion-related cases, and the pivotal Loper Bright decision affecting the administrative state. They analyze the court's reasoning and the broader implications of these rulings.(00:15:28) Chapter 3: The Court's Evolving Role and MethodologyDiscussion of the broader implications of the Supreme Court's evolving approach to its docket and decision-making processes, particularly in relation to the administrative state and the impact of recent rulings on future cases.(00:19:14) Chapter 4: The Supreme Court and Technology CasesThey delve into the significant technology cases that were brought before the Supreme Court this term. They discuss how the Court addressed state laws from Florida and Texas aimed at restricting content moderation by big tech companies, marking the first time the First Amendment was applied to social media platforms. The discussion highlights the tension between traditional legal frameworks and the evolving digital landscape, with a focus on the implications of these rulings for the future of free speech online.(00:24:10) Chapter 5: Trump and the Supreme Court: Balancing Power and ImmunityThe group explores the complex legal landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump's involvement in Supreme Court cases. Easha Anand provides an in-depth analysis of the Trump v. United States case, where the Court examined the extent of presidential immunity concerning acts related to the 2020 election. The discussion also touches on the broader implications of the Court's rulings on Trump's legal challenges, including how these decisions might shape future presidential conduct and accountability.(00:29:27) Chapter 6: Supreme Court's Role in Protecting DemocracyPam Karlan and Jeff Fisher discuss the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding democratic processes. They analyze the Court's reluctance to engage deeply in political matters, such as the January 6th prosecution and political gerrymandering, highlighting the tension between judicial restraint and the need to protect democratic values. The chapter concludes with reflections on the broader implications of these decisions for the future of U.S. democracy, particularly in the context of voting rights and election integrity.

While most everyone was reacting to Thursday's Presidential debate, we had our eyes trained on the Supreme Court. It was again (surprise!) bad. SCOTUS determined that sleeping outside was illegal in Grants Pass v Johnson. They limited the scope by which insurrectionists could be charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 in Fischer v United States. The unelected robed leaders then laid a finishing blow in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, overturning the decades-long guidance of the longstanding Chevron doctrine and upending the ways in which government agencies can regulate the things they regulate like; clean air, water, firearms your retirement account and oh, medical care.   This term has signaled something especially troubling. While you can certainly be concerned about Trump or Biden being president once again, you should be more worried about how the justices at the Supreme Court have basically made themselves the end-all-be-all of every legislative matter, regardless who wins presidential contests. It should also come as no surprise who will benefit from these decisions (rich people with yachts).  Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Slate's Mark Joseph Stern and Professor Pam Karlan, co-director of Stanford law school's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to go over Friday's rulings and to break down what it means that federal agencies will no longer be able to, you know, do anything reasonable. Listen to an interview with a doctor helping unhoused people in Grants Pass, OR. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While most everyone was reacting to Thursday's Presidential debate, we had our eyes trained on the Supreme Court. It was again (surprise!) bad. SCOTUS determined that sleeping outside was illegal in Grants Pass v Johnson. They limited the scope by which insurrectionists could be charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 in Fischer v United States. The unelected robed leaders then laid a finishing blow in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, overturning the decades-long guidance of the longstanding Chevron doctrine and upending the ways in which government agencies can regulate the things they regulate like; clean air, water, firearms your retirement account and oh, medical care.   This term has signaled something especially troubling. While you can certainly be concerned about Trump or Biden being president once again, you should be more worried about how the justices at the Supreme Court have basically made themselves the end-all-be-all of every legislative matter, regardless who wins presidential contests. It should also come as no surprise who will benefit from these decisions (rich people with yachts).  Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Slate's Mark Joseph Stern and Professor Pam Karlan, co-director of Stanford law school's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to go over Friday's rulings and to break down what it means that federal agencies will no longer be able to, you know, do anything reasonable. Listen to an interview with a doctor helping unhoused people in Grants Pass, OR. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While most everyone was reacting to Thursday's Presidential debate, we had our eyes trained on the Supreme Court. It was again (surprise!) bad. SCOTUS determined that sleeping outside was illegal in Grants Pass v Johnson. They limited the scope by which insurrectionists could be charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 in Fischer v United States. The unelected robed leaders then laid a finishing blow in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, overturning the decades-long guidance of the longstanding Chevron doctrine and upending the ways in which government agencies can regulate the things they regulate like; clean air, water, firearms your retirement account and oh, medical care.   This term has signaled something especially troubling. While you can certainly be concerned about Trump or Biden being president once again, you should be more worried about how the justices at the Supreme Court have basically made themselves the end-all-be-all of every legislative matter, regardless who wins presidential contests. It should also come as no surprise who will benefit from these decisions (rich people with yachts).  Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Slate's Mark Joseph Stern and Professor Pam Karlan, co-director of Stanford law school's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to go over Friday's rulings and to break down what it means that federal agencies will no longer be able to, you know, do anything reasonable. Listen to an interview with a doctor helping unhoused people in Grants Pass, OR. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!How many Supreme Court advocates wind up with three or more arguments in the same Term? Some of my past podcast guests—like Lisa Blatt, Paul Clement, Neal Katyal, and Kannon Shanmugam—can claim this distinction. But it's very, very rare (especially if you don't work—or have never worked—in the Office of the Solicitor General).What's even more rare is having three oral arguments in your very first Term arguing before the Court. But Easha Anand, the 38-year-old co-director of Stanford Law School's renowned Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, just pulled off this feat—which is why I was so eager to have her as a guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast.How did Easha wind up in law school, after a promising journalism career that included stints at the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Wall Street Journal? How did she wind up with three Supreme Court arguments in the same Term? And what are her three pieces of advice for first-time SCOTUS advocates?Listen to our podcast interview to find out. Congratulations to Easha on the unanimous win in her first argued case, thanks to her for joining me, and good luck to her in what I predict will be a long and successful career arguing at One First Street.Show Notes:* Easha Anand bio, Stanford Law School* Stanford's Anand Argues Whistleblower Case in High Court Debut, by Lydia Wheeler for Bloomberg Law* Supreme Court Bar's Breakout Lawyer This Term Started Out in Journalism, by Jimmy Hoover for the National Law JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

Easha Anand of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic joins Kate, Melissa, and Leah to lay out what SCOTUS has been up to in the world of criminal law. But first, Kate and Leah analyze the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the mifepristone case, and what it means for people seeking abortions across the country.Listen to "What's next in a post-Roe world," our episode with Diana Greene Foster, author of The Turnaway StudyGet more background on the mifepristone case in our episodes from earlier this year: "Mifepristone, Mega Yachts, and Maskgate," and "What's next for mifepristone?"Follow @CrookedMedia on Instagram and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Decades of cuts to local government amidst rising concentrations of poverty have wreaked havoc on communities left behind by the modern economy. Some of these discarded places are rural. Others are big cities, small cities, or historic suburbs. Some vote blue, others red. Mostly, their governments are just broke. Stanford Law School Professor Michelle Wilde Anderson says that 40 years after the anti-tax revolution began protecting wealthy taxpayers and their cities, high-poverty cities and counties have run out of services to cut, properties to sell, bills to defer, and risky loans to take. In The Fight to Save the Town, Anderson traveled to four blue-collar communities that are poor, broke, and progressing—Stockton, California; Josephine County, Oregon; Lawrence, Massachusetts; and Detroit, Michigan. She shares how networks of local leaders and residents are coming together to face this crisis head on and working toward innovative solutions to deal with pressing issues, including gun violence, housing and unemployment. Hear more about the fight to save our communities at the local level and create wealth equity for all. SPEAKERS Michelle Wilde Anderson Professor of Property, Local Government, and Environment Justice, Stanford Law School; Author, The Fight to Save the Town: Reimagining Discarded America In Conversation with Pamela Karlan Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and a Founder and Co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on September 19th, 2022 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Biden administration's Covid vaccine mandates. Under one mandate, employers with more than 100 employees must require those employees to be vaccinated, or be tested for Covid on a weekly basis. Under the other mandate, any health care facility that participates in Medicare or Medicaid must ensure that all their workers are fully vaccinated. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two attorneys who filed amicus briefs in these cases. John Masslon, senior litigation counsel at Washington Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing against the legality of the mandates, and Deepak Gupta, founding principal of Gupta Wessler and instructor at Harvard's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, filed an amicus brief in support of the legality of the mandates on behalf of the American Public Health Association. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Biden administration's Covid vaccine mandates. Under one mandate, employers with more than 100 employees must require those employees to be vaccinated, or be tested for Covid on a weekly basis. Under the other mandate, any health care facility that participates in Medicare or Medicaid must ensure that all their workers are fully vaccinated. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two attorneys who filed amicus briefs in these cases. John Masslon, senior litigation counsel at Washington Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing against the legality of the mandates, and Deepak Gupta, founding principal of Gupta Wessler and instructor at Harvard's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, filed an amicus brief in support of the legality of the mandates on behalf of the American Public Health Association. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Jeffrey Fisher, the co-director of Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, has more than 40 Supreme Court arguments under his belt. He joins SCOTUStalk to discuss his non-traditional path to becoming a top oral advocate, and he breaks down key moments from two of his arguments during the 2020-21 term, when all arguments were over the telephone. This interview is part of SCOTUStalk's occasional “SCOTUS spotlight” series, which features in-depth interviews with Supreme Court litigators about how they approach oral arguments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On April 21, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The question before the Court was whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The case involves the issue of whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.Supreme Court practice expert Daniel Ortiz joins us to discuss the case and review the oral arguments. Featuring: -- Prof. Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law

As many of us know, a Supreme Court vacancy could arise at any moment. We know from the right’s singular focus on packing the lower courts with ideological judges, many of whom are on this Administration’s Supreme Court short list, that the goal is to shift the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence for a generation, with a particular eye on overturning Roe, Obergefell, and numerous other decisions that recognize important rights that we should not take for granted. Featuring: Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Member, ACS National Board of Directors Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society (moderator) Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law; Co-director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School and Chair, ACS National Board of Directors Melissa Murray, Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Member, ACS National Board of Directors

On Tuesday, Dec. 13, two of the nation’s top constitutional law scholars released an open letter to Donald Trump signed by over 40 leading constitutional law scholars. The letter outlines seven areas of “great concern” that several constitutional scholars have with the next president. Neil Siegel, David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, co-director of the Program in Public Law, director of the DC Summer Institute on Law and Policy at Duke University School of Law and ACS Board of Academic Advisors member explained the need for the letter. Pamela Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School and ACS Board Member discussed the substance of the letter and explained what constitutional scholars expect out of the next administration.

Professor Daniel Ortiz talks about the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic with prospective law students. This session was part of UVA Law's admitted students open house. (University of Virginia School of Law, March 16, 2018)

Professor Dan Ortiz, director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, talks to admitted students about the clinic. This session was part of UVA Law’s 2017 admitted students open house. (University of Virginia School of Law, March 17, 2017)

Political correctness in the classroom can be seen as a consequence of a lack of political diversity in the university. How does political correctness affect research, and teaching? Is political correctness all that bad, or does it have a proper place in academia? Professors Pam Karlan, Richard Sander, and Nicholas Rosenkranz discuss. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Prof. Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Richard H. Sander, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Zachary Price, Associate Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of the Law.

Professor Pamela S. Karlan speaks with us about the recently completed U.S. Supreme Court term. Prof. Karlan teaches constitutional law and related subjects at Stanford Law School. And she co-directs Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, which regularly represents criminal defendants and habeas petitioners before the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more about NACDL. Steven Logan, production supervisor. Music West Bank (Lezet) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 and Walkabout (Digital Primitives) / CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Running time: 17m 41s.