Podcasts about Thornburg

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 178 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Caitlin Byczko, who is partner with Marnes & Thornburg in their IP team. Ken is discussing dupe culture with her. Here is the profile of Caitlin Byczko https://btlaw.com/en/people/caitlin-byczko But before we launch into this very interesting interview, I have some news for you: On August 10th, 2026, Navitas Semiconductor filed suit against Renesas Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Renesas of infringing four US patents on gallium nitride semiconductor technology through its SuperGaN product lines. The filing follows a countersuit Renesas brought on July 22nd, 2026, accusing Navitas and two of its employees of misappropriating trade secrets. It shows how patent disputes and trade secret claims between competitors are increasingly being fought on multiple fronts at once, and often as tit for tat. It also emerged on August 12th, 2026, that an EPO Board of Appeal had dismissed an appeal by Atlas Global Technologies and ruled that its WiFi patent, EP 3 353 901, case T 1230/25, could not be maintained in any form at all, even though the original opponents, TP-Link and Vantiva, had already withdrawn their oppositions. That knocked out the basis for several parallel infringement suits at the Unified Patent Court, which were then withdrawn. For suppliers and implementers, the takeaway is that fighting a patent held by a non-practising entity can still be worth it, even once the original opponent has thrown in the towel. On August 10th, 2026, the Unified Patent Court in The Hague fully revoked Maxell’s patent EP 2 061 230, covering technology for handing off content to a second device, and at the same time dismissed Maxell’s infringement claim against several Samsung entities, in cases UPC_CFI_251/2025 and UPC_CFI_769/2025. The judges found the patent to be nothing more than an obvious combination of routine adaptations, with no additional technical effect. And now – let's hear the interview with Ken and Caitlin! A dupe used to be a quiet, slow thing. You’d stand in the cereal aisle, notice the generic box next to the name brand, buy it, tell a friend. Word spread over months. That world is gone. On this episode of IP Fridays, Ken Suzan sat down with Caitlin Byczko, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Indianapolis, to talk about what’s replaced it: a TikTok-driven economy where a single video can sell out a dupe product within hours, sometimes before the original brand’s own team even knows it exists. Byczko litigates and prosecutes trademarks across retail, fashion, luxury goods, technology, and pharmaceuticals, and she’s watched dupe culture evolve from a marketing footnote into one of the more active battlegrounds in trademark law. Here’s what she told us, and why it matters even if your brand has never heard the word “dupe” used about it. Counterfeit and Dupe Are Not the Same Thing, Legally Byczko opened with what she called the most important distinction in this entire conversation: the difference between a counterfeit and a dupe. A counterfeit uses someone else’s actual trademark. Think of a fake Chanel bag stamped with the interlocking C’s, or a fake Louis Vuitton logo. That’s straightforward infringement, and above certain thresholds, a federal crime. A dupe is different. It mimics the look, feel, or performance of a product without using the name or the logo at all. Elf Cosmetics, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, and Quince have all built parts of their business on exactly this model. No one is pretending to be Chanel. They’re offering something that looks and performs similarly, at a fraction of the price, under their own name. Media and social media use “dupe” and “counterfeit” interchangeably. Legally, that’s sloppy, and it matters, because the two categories trigger completely different legal analyses. If There’s No Logo, What Are Brands Actually Suing Over? This is where trade dress comes in. Trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a product: packaging, color combinations, shape, label design. Byczko pointed out that most of us interact with trade-dress-protected products every day without realizing it. The test is likelihood of confusion. Courts look at how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, and whether there’s real evidence that people were confused. Byczko flagged one case as a genuine roadmap for this area: Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery, an ice cream trade dress dispute that came out of the Eastern District of New York. In her view, the strength of that case came down to how precisely the brand defined its trade dress for the packaging. That precision, she said, did a lot of the work toward the outcome. She’s also watching Lululemon v. Costco, which she expects to be significant partly because it doesn’t rely on trademark and trade dress alone. Byczko noted that brands are increasingly stacking causes of action together: trademark, patent, false advertising, all pointing at the same product. And she’s tracking Sol de Janeiro v. Macau Beauty, a case she finds notable because it pulls in influencer content and testimonials as evidence, not just packaging and trade dress claims. Macau Beauty, she noted, has already been sued multiple times across different jurisdictions. A note for readers outside the US: trade dress as a distinct doctrine doesn’t exist as such in Germany. The closest tools here are the three-dimensional trademark and, more practically, the wettbewerbsrechtlicher Nachahmungsschutz under Section 4 No. 3 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). That provision protects product shape, packaging, and get-up against imitation when the original has wettbewerbliche Eigenart, competitive distinctiveness, and the copy creates avoidable confusion about origin, unfairly exploits the original’s reputation, or was built on dishonestly obtained know-how. It’s a narrower, more fact-specific tool than US trade dress, but the underlying logic Byczko describes, define your product’s distinctive features early and precisely, applies just as much on this side of the Atlantic. Why the Evidence Problem Changed Everything Ken asked what’s actually driving the current wave of disputes, and Byczko’s answer was simple: evidence. Ten or twenty years ago, if you sent a cease-and-desist letter or went to trial, you had almost nothing concrete to show about how consumers actually perceived two products. Now you have TikTok comment sections, influencer testimonials, and entire genres of “dupe content” documenting exactly what shoppers think, in their own words, in real time. In the Sol de Janeiro case, Byczko noted that part of the complaint isn’t just about packaging and trade dress. It’s about what influencers said, what claims they made, and what that content reveals about actual consumer confusion or the absence of it. That’s evidence litigators simply didn’t have access to a decade ago, and it cuts both ways: it can prove confusion, or it can just as easily prove there wasn’t any. Why Dupes Took Off: Economics, Status, and a Generational Shift Byczko was careful to frame this part as her personal read, not a sociologist’s conclusion, but it’s a read shaped by watching these disputes up close. Part of it is straightforward economics. Gen Z is shopping under real affordability pressure, and dupes let them participate in trend cycles without the price tag. Byczko cited a projected $12.6 trillion in Gen Z spending power by 2030, a generation too significant for brands to write off. The other part is cultural. A generation ago, owning a visible logo was the status symbol. Now, for a lot of younger shoppers, being the savvy one, the person who finds the dupe first and tells their followers about it, carries its own status. It’s less “I have the real thing” and more “I outsmarted the markup.” Byczko also pointed to growing public skepticism toward paying five or ten times more for a product purely because of the name on the packaging, particularly in beauty and fashion. The PR Trap: When Enforcement Backfires One of the sharpest points in the conversation was about what happens after a brand decides to enforce. Suing over a dupe can read very differently in public than it does in a courtroom. Byczko put it directly: going after a dupe can easily look, to the public, like a big corporation coming down on a small competitor, or worse, on its own customers, the same people who made the original brand aspirational in the first place. She’s seen this dynamic play out repeatedly in high-profile cases. Her advice: treat enforcement as a communication strategy, not just a legal one. Sometimes the smarter move isn’t a lawsuit at all. It’s a quieter cease-and-desist letter, a takedown request, or doubling down on marketing that explains what actually makes the original worth the price. Charlotte Tilbury has leaned hard into this approach, building campaigns around the idea that the original simply can’t be remade. Olaplex ran a similar play with its “OlaDupe” campaign. Legal and marketing, Byczko said, have to work together on this, not in sequence. What Brands Should Actually Do Byczko laid out three practical layers, all before litigation ever enters the picture. First: register your trademarks, and where a product design is genuinely distinctive, pursue trade dress or design patent protection early, before a dupe exists and before you know whether the product will even take off. That timing problem is real. Brands rarely know in advance which product will become the one worth copying. Her advice was to look at long-standing anchor products, the ones that have quietly carried a brand identity for years, and ask whether they’re actually protected. Second: monitor. A large share of dupe disputes start on social media, not in a courtroom. That means someone needs to be watching hashtags and influencer content, not just from direct competitors, but from adjacent or even unrelated brands that could end up duping a product without anyone noticing until it’s already trending. Third, and the one Byczko clearly considers most underused: consumer education and brand storytelling. “This is the original” is a weak pitch on its own in a market flooded with cheap alternatives. What works better is explaining, specifically, what makes a product different: its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity. Give people a real reason to pay more, not just a claim to authenticity. Where This Goes Next Byczko doesn’t think dupe culture is a passing trend. Her expectation is closer to “there will eventually be a dupe of everything,” and she’s watching an interesting generational pattern where teenage shoppers are teaching their mothers about dupes, who are in turn teaching their own mothers. On the legal side, she expects more clarity as cases like Van Leeuwen work their way through the system, giving brands a clearer formula for how to define and defend trade dress. On the brand side, she expects less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in what’s genuinely hard to copy: real innovation, ingredient transparency, and storytelling that a dupe simply can’t replicate. One data point she raised stuck with us: search interest in the word “craftsmanship” is at its highest point in twenty years. After years of leaning into dupe culture, there are signs some consumers are swinging back toward wanting the original, the real ingredient, the real technique, the thing that can’t be copied to the same quality. For brands sitting on distinctive packaging, a signature shape, or a product identity they’ve never formally registered, that’s less a trend forecast than a to-do list. Here is the full transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Ralf. Our guest today on the IP Friday’s podcast is Caitlin Byczko. Caitlin is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg LLP and is based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Caitlin crafts and defends global brand strategies, protecting intellectual property assets with creative solutions and highly tactical advocacy. She excels in trademark prosecution and litigation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and federal district courts, safeguarding trademarks and digital properties for businesses of all sizes and at every stage of the business life cycle. From startups to Fortune 500 companies, Caitlin manages clients’ intellectual property needs across diverse industries. Her experience spans retail, fashion, luxury goods, sports, technology, agriculture, venture capital and pharmaceuticals. Beyond trademark law, Caitlin brings valuable insights from her law school experience with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, and her previous work serving in a technology company’s in-house legal department. Her tenacious nature and clever problem-solving skills shine through in complex matters, earning praise from clients and colleagues alike. Caitlin is co-author of “Dupe Culture Meets the Courtroom,” published in Global Cosmetic Industry on March 16, 2026. Welcome, Caitlin, to the IP Friday’s podcast. Caitlin Byczko: Hi, Ken. Thank you so much. I’m very honored to be here. Ken Suzan: Yeah, so Caitlin, today we’re talking about dupe culture, a topic that is rapidly becoming front for many brands around the world. What’s the actual difference between a dupe and a counterfeit? Caitlin Byczko: That is one of my favorite questions. This is the most important distinction to draw when we are talking legally about dupes because the difference, because media and social media often use the words interchangeably and legally they’re very different. A counterfeit is a product that uses someone else’s actual trademark. We often think of a fake Chanel bag with interlocking C’s or a fake Louis Vuitton. It’s relatively straightforward trademark infringement and generally above certain thresholds is a federal crime. A dupe, by contrast, is a product that mimics the look, feel, or performance product without actually using the name or logo. We often think of it in the beauty products, in the fashion space, some brands like Elf Cosmetics, which was in the article you just mentioned, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, Quince, who are all very well known in the dupe space. Ken Suzan: What has led to the rise of dupe culture? I’m reading about it virtually every day. Caitlin Byczko: I feel very strongly about this and I’m always talking about it in my legal and non-legal worlds. It’s a very interesting societal change that I think we’ve seen over the past year. I am a lawyer, I am not a marketer, I am not a sociologist, but in my opinion, social media and influencer culture specifically has really created the kind of rise in dupes that we see today. I don’t think we can talk about modern dupe culture without talking about TikTok specifically. Dupe content is its own genre, essentially on TikTok and on Instagram. There’s a whole vocabulary that people are dupe influencers, where their whole product, everything that they’re doing and selling, all of the content they’re making is dupe related. What’s really changed is the speed, I think, around when other products or when a dupe product comes out, how it can be marketed and how people can find out about it. The speed of commerce itself has increased wildly as a result, in part because of social media. A product used to take months to build a reputation as a good alternative. When we think about things, generic cereal is one thing that I have been talking about with my parents with respect to dupe culture. It was one of the things that there used to be, you would go to the store and there would be the cereal, the name brand cereal, and then there would be the generic version of the cereal, which was usually less expensive. That in a way was a dupe. It took a long time. Your friends knew about the dupe cereal and then you knew about the dupe cereal. Then it all got around. Now a single video can send a dupe product sold out within days, within hours sometimes. Oftentimes, a brand’s own team doesn’t even know about the dupe until it’s already been wildly out. Part of it becomes this legal issue when there are claims coming around the dupe. In the Sol de Janeiro case against Macau Beauty, part of the complaint isn’t just about the trade dress and the packaging, which I think we’ll talk about. It’s about the influencer content and the testimonials and what people are saying about the dupes. There’s so much evidence now and there’s so much content and there’s so much out there regarding dupes on social media, on TikTok, and in other places. Ken Suzan: Yeah, and it’s an ever-evolving story. Every day there’s new social media content, more evidence for a potential gain, right? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. Ken Suzan: So if dupes aren’t using a particular brand name, how are companies suing over them at all? Caitlin Byczko: So this is really where trade dress comes in, and trade dress, as most of us know, has been around for a long time. There are a lot of very well-known things that you probably see or use every day that you don’t know are protected by trade dress, but they are. And the trade dress protects the overall kind of look and feel of a product. So if you think about things like packaging, color combinations, shape, label design, when that becomes distinctive enough, right? When consumers see that and kind of immediately understand it has the secondary meaning related to the brand owner, then it can become a protectable trademark. And so the test for trademark infringement is likelihood of confusion. And courts will look at the factors of how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, whether there’s evidence that people were actually confused. I think one of the big cases in the trade dress space that came out since you and I discussed originally, Ken, is the Van Leeuwen versus Rebel Creamery ice cream case. And so for any of those interested, it’s a very interesting opinion. It just came out of the Eastern District of New York. I think that really helps people, brands specifically, kind of provide a roadmap with respect to how to define a trade dress. I think they did an excellent job there defining what the trade dress was for the packaging. And I think that that had a lot to do with the success. Ken Suzan: Yes. Ken Suzan: Why do you think younger consumers gravitate towards dupes so much more than past generations did? Caitlin Byczko: I think there are a few things that are kind of top of each other. The obvious one is economics. I think younger consumers, especially Gen Z, they’re shopping in an environment where there’s affordability pressure. And I think that dupes let them participate in certain trend cycles without the price tag. Gen Z is a significant demographic behind the growth of dupes. And they have a predicted spending power we saw recently, $12.6 trillion by 2030. Ken Suzan: Wow. That’s incredible. Caitlin Byczko: I think it is really also coupled with more of what I would say is a cultural shift. Again, I am a lawyer and this is just my opinion. But what feels aspirational is really changing, I think. And a generation ago, we saw in the fashion world, there was a really big, people really liked logos. Having a logo, owning a logo was the point. And now for a lot of younger shoppers or even more savvy shoppers, actually being a savvy shopper is the status symbol itself. So for a lot of creators, finding the dupe before anyone else or being the one who tells your followers about the dupe really has its own, and it’s less “I have this real thing” and more, “oh, I outsmarted the markup.” And I think it’s that kind of value. I think younger consumers are more publicly skeptical of the idea that something is worth five or ten times more just because of the name on the packaging. And I think that that becomes the case particularly in beauty and then clothing as well. And so I think it’s coupled with the question of craftsmanship and all of these different things. Like we can’t view anything in a vacuum, which is why I could talk for 500 years about this topic. Ken Suzan: Yeah, definitely. Now brands obviously want to protect themselves. That’s an important thing. But going after a dupe can backfire publicly, particularly on the internet. Can you comment on this possibility and what should brands do? Caitlin Byczko: Sure. I think the biggest thing is what you just said. So I think there’s the legal component. And when we’re assessing this for one of our brand clients, I think we cannot review one without the other. So I think you have to say, do we have this claim? Do we have a protectable trade dress or a look and feel claim? And what is the potential backlash in the public? I think it is also a joint PR concern, because what we see is suing over a dupe can very easily read to the public as, oh, this big brand or big corporation is coming down on a small competitor or on its own customers that made the original brand aspirational. I think that we see this in a lot of the big cases that are out right now. So brands, I think, can start to think about enforcement as a communication strategy first, because sometimes the smarter play isn’t necessarily filing a lawsuit. It’s kind of a quieter cease and desist, a takedown request, or separately, it might be really doubling down on the craftsmanship or on a marketing side of what makes the product worth the price. I think Charlotte Tilbury is a great example of this, who’s really leaned into this kind of “can’t be duped” or “you can’t remake the original” with respect to some of their really core products. And so I think people really need to, or brands really need to, assess: one, how can we define what it is that’s being duped? And again, that’s where I think that Van Leeuwen case, I think, will be really interesting over the next few years, with respect to kind of providing this roadmap to help people say, here is a way that we can try to really define what the trade dress is and then be able to protect it and be able to enforce it. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, are there cases right now, I know we just talked about the Van Leeuwen case, but are there cases right now that you think will actually set the tone for how this area of law develops? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. And I think some of the cases probably are even in the works, they’re not even filed yet, which is probably very exciting to us as trademark nerds. I do think the Lululemon versus Costco case will be a big one. It’s not just trademarks and trade dress, as many of them are not. I think a lot of times we see in these cases brands are very smartly using kind of all of the different types of causes of action that they bring: trademark, patent, false advertising, a lot of different things. And so I think that that one is definitely certainly one to watch kind of in the fashion space. And then the Sol de Janeiro versus Macau Beauty. Macau Beauty has been sued multiple times, I think, in various jurisdictions. And so I think part of that one is very interesting to me because I think it’s this, it loops not only trademark protection, but also it brings in false advertising, it brings in influencers, it brings in all of these different things. And so I think, like we had talked about previously, nothing is really viewed in a vacuum. And I think for all of these cases, one really important thing, maybe that we didn’t necessarily have access to 10 years ago, or certainly 20 years ago, is this like just ripe amount of evidence of potential confusion or potential non-confusion. When we go on social media and look at all of these things, and then read the comments and all of this different data that’s out there, it’s fascinating, because if you’re in trial, or if you’re going to trial, you’re sending a cease and desist letter, like there is evidence of what the consumers think right here in front of you, right? And the weight of that evidence obviously depends on what it is. But it’s fascinating the way that you can very quickly identify, you know, is there confusion? Is there not confusion, in a way that you likely could never have even thought to consider 10 to 20 years ago? Ken Suzan: Now beyond litigation, what should brands actually be doing to protect themselves in a dupe-driven market? Caitlin Byczko: I think one of the best things that we can do, right, is starting to register the trademarks. I think that’s an obvious one. And really start to consider where the product is genuinely distinctive. And so if it is genuinely distinctive, pursuing a trade dress or a design patent early, before a dupe exists, before anything happens. And I know that can be difficult, because oftentimes brands don’t know for sure what’s going to take off and what’s not. It can also be a surprise. But I think it’s really pushing brands that when you are innovating and when you are doing something that is truly unique and truly distinctive, or when you’re looking back on your brand assets and saying, this thing has been an anchor brand asset for 10 years, you know, have we sought trade dress protection? Is there a way that we can do that? The second layer really is monitoring, in my mind, because a lot of dupe disputes do start on social media. And I think it is important to have people within a company, if you have a product that you’re really keeping an eye on, or that you’re concerned about being duped or causing confusion, having someone who is keeping eyes on hashtags and influencer content and all of these various things. You know, we’re not watching just your direct competitors, we’re watching other completely different brands, or kind of made-up brands even, who could be duping the product. And then I think the third thing that I see as very important is this kind of consumer education and brand storytelling, which is when we kind of get outside of the purely legal side of it. And, you know, legal and marketing and brand and social kind of all need to work together, right? I think if the only pitch to consumers is “this is the original,” it kind of becomes a weak argument in a market where there are cheap alternatives everywhere. But I think the brands that really explain what actually makes their product different, in its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity, it really gives people a real reason to say, I want to pay more for this brand because of XYZ, you know, the technology or whatever that is. Charlotte Tilbury is one that I had mentioned. I know Olaplex kind of had a big campaign around “OlaDupe” is what they called it. So I think really unique and interesting marketing also assists with that. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, where do you see dupe culture heading? Is this a trend that plateaus or does it fundamentally change how brands operate? Caitlin Byczko: I think dupe culture itself is here to stay. I mean, I think we are only getting into a world where there is truly going to be a dupe of everything. And it’s not good or bad necessarily. I think it is just where we are in life. And I think, you know, things serve different purposes. And it all depends a lot on how the younger consumers shop. And it’s also changing how older consumers shop. You know, I’ve read a lot about teenage girls teaching their moms about dupes, who are then teaching their grandmothers about dupes, right? So on the legal side, I think we will get clarity eventually. I think right around, you know, all like all of these things, which seem so complex, and we’ll never know the answer. You know, five [years] from now, we will probably have certainly more clarity, because a lot of these cases will move forward. You know, the Van Leeuwen one, which I’ve now talked about multiple times, but I just obviously think it’s very fascinating. I think that that’s one where you have a roadmap, right? And it may be contested, or, you know, everything is very fact-specific in the trademark world. But I think it will open the door to allow people one more aggressive brand enforcement. But it will give people a roadmap proactively to kind of say, if we follow this formula for our trade dress, or, you know, defining our trade dress, then, you know, we have something we can potentially protect. And then I think on the brand side, we’ll likely see less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in things that are actually, you know, difficult to dupe: innovation, ingredient transparency, marketing, genuinely interesting brand storytelling is something that we’ve seen. I read this past week that searches for craftsmanship, just like generally the word craftsmanship, and kind of products with craftsmanship, is at an all-time high, than it’s been in like the past 20 years. And so it’s interesting, right, that we have gone from this kind of luxury item or high craftsmanship to this dupe culture that we are in now. But there is some potential shift where people are saying, you know, now, I’ve seen all of this and I have all of these options, but now actually what I do care about is the original, right, the innovation or the ingredient transparency or all of those things that can’t necessarily be copied to the same quality. So it’s why it will just provide us with endless topic of discussion, because I think it will only just keep changing forever. Ken Suzan: That’s right. Caitlin, I want to thank you for spending time with us on the IP Friday’s podcast. This has been very insightful, and I’m sure we’ll be talking about this issue in the months and years to come. Caitlin Byczko: Thank you so much, Ken. I really appreciate it. Ken Suzan: Thank you.

【聊了什么】 同样讨论总统罢免权，FTC 不是例外，美联储却是；同样声称尊重文本和原意，保守派大法官在出生公民权、投票权和跨性别权益案中，却一次次更换自己的法理工具。 本期我们与 Nancy、品达一起盘点美国最高法院 2025-2026 开庭期：特朗普的“单一行政权”走到了哪一步？谁仍然被视为美国人？《投票权法》还剩下多少效力？跨性别学生为什么被排除在女子校队之外？当法院的判决越来越只能用政治解释，偶尔对特朗普说“不”，究竟是制度制衡，还是“小骂大帮忙”？ 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 01:39 FTC 与美联储：特朗普能解雇谁 08:02 “单一行政权”如何成为保守派共识 28:29 出生公民权与谁算“美国人” 43:31 TPS 终止：移民身份和司法审查 53:35 投票权法、黑人选区与政治划区 1:02:02 最高法院还有稳定法理吗 1:13:01 跨性别学生参加女子体育案 1:20:53 校园体育为什么不能套用精英体育逻辑 1:33:32 Alito 退休乌龙与大法官的个人政治 1:41:21 Barrett 为什么总成为右翼攻击目标 1:44:36 法院改革与对特朗普“小骂大帮忙” 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 本期的主播和嘉宾： Lokin：美国法学院毕业生，即将成为一名纽约诉讼律师 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 Nancy：普林斯顿大学政治学博士生，耶鲁法学院法律博士 品达：美国政治观察人士，《孤岛繁星》主播 【 What We Talked About】 When considering the same question of presidential removal power, the Court decided that the FTC was not an exception, but the Federal Reserve was. And while the conservative justices continue to profess their commitment to textualism and originalism, they repeatedly switched doctrinal tools in cases involving birthright citizenship, voting rights, and transgender rights. In this episode, Nancy and Pinda join us to review the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025-2026 term. How far has Trump's vision of the “unitary executive” advanced? Who still counts as American? How much remains of the Voting Rights Act? Why can transgender students be excluded from girls' school sports? As the Court's decisions become increasingly difficult to explain through legal doctrine alone, do its occasional rulings against Trump represent genuine institutional checks, or merely “small rebukes, big assists”? 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 01:39 The FTC and the Federal Reserve: Whom can Trump fire? 08:02 How the “unitary executive” became a conservative consensus 28:29 Birthright citizenship and who counts as “American” 43:31 Ending TPS: Immigration status and judicial review 53:35 The Voting Rights Act, majority-Black districts, and partisan redistricting 1:02:02 Does the Supreme Court still have a coherent legal doctrine? 1:13:01 The case over transgender students participating in girls' sports 1:20:53 Why school sports cannot be judged by the logic of elite athletics 1:33:32 The false report of Alito's retirement and the personal politics of the justices 1:41:21 Why Barrett remains a favorite target of the right 1:44:36 Court reform and the Supreme Court's “small rebukes, big assists” approach to Trump 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Lokin: U.S. law school student, incoming NY litigation lawyer 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information Nancy：Princeton Politics PhD student, Yale Law School graduate Pinda：American political enthusiast 【The Links】 Trump v. Slaughter：总统罢免 FTC 委员与“单一行政权” Trump v. Cook：总统罢免美联储理事与央行独立性 Trump v. Barbara：出生公民权 Mullin v. Doe：海地与叙利亚 TPS 终止及司法审查 Louisiana v. Callais：黑人多数选区与《投票权法》第二条 West Virginia v. B. P. J.：跨性别学生参加女子体育运动 《纽约时报》：TPS 被终止后，美国部分行业面临劳动力短缺 Harvard Kennedy School：Louisiana v. Callais 对《投票权法》意味着什么 《纽约时报》：最高法院跨性别学生体育案的当事人 Becky Pepper-Jackson Becky Pepper-Jackson 的母亲：这个母亲节，我感谢跨性别女儿教会我的事 ACLU：关于跨性别运动员的四个常见迷思 NPR Public Editor：Nina Totenberg 误报 Alito 退休事件的经过 《纽约时报》：Amy Coney Barrett 为何再次遭到共和党右翼攻击 《纽约时报》：Ketanji Brown Jackson 做客 Michelle Obama 播客 IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson：Ketanji Brown Jackson 访谈 Slow Burn: Becoming Justice Gorsuch Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)：FTC 独立性与正当理由解雇 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)：推翻 Chevron deference Seila Law v. CFPB (2020)：单一局长制与总统罢免权 United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)：“黄金德案”与出生公民权 Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)：《投票权法》第二条的 Gingles 标准 Shelby County v. Holder (2013)：削弱《投票权法》的关键判决

Economist Rebecca Homkes, a lecturer at Duke University and London Business School whose consulting practice focuses on the things that influence the thinking of chief executives, says that the valuations of A.I. companies are sky high because investors believe in the transformational technology, but that when that transformation shows up — and investors worry that an industry like software could get pinched in the transformation — investors tend to panic. She sees concerns that the A.I. funding cycle has become so circular that any troubles could unwind the market quickly, so while she is not expecting a recession or a bubble quickly, she does suggest danger signs are visible now. Carter Braxton Worth, chief executive officer at Worth Charting — known by many as "the Chart Master" on CNBC — brings technical analysis to the Market Call, noting that he doesn't study companies, he studies shares. Worth notes that he currently favors small-cap financials, utilities and energy companies, and he warns of the "bifurcation of technology," where one area of the sector does very well while another one does very poorly, which he considers a sign of potential trouble ahead. This bifurcation is similar -- but with a technical analysis bent -- to Homkes' explanation of the wild market responses to AI stocks. Todd Rosenbluth, head of research at VettaFi, brings the proverbial hammer of THOR to the ETF of the Week, bestowing the weekly title to a new income-focused stock fund  from Thornburg that carries that mythic ticker symbol.

On this episode of the "ETF of the Week" podcast, VettaFi's Head of Research, Todd Rosenbluth, discussed the Thornburg Premium Income Builder ETF (THOR) with Chuck Jaffe of Money Life.

This is the 100th episode of The New Quantum Era, and it arrives at a moment of convergence: the book is out, the Helgoland centennial documentary is in production, regional quantum ecosystems are scaling from ambition to construction, and the field is entering the transition from heroic-era qubit demos to the hard systems engineering that will determine whether quantum computing becomes a real industry. Bob Karr — who sits at the intersection of law, policy, and the quantum ecosystem as the person behind the Quantum Law Navigator and a convener across the Chicago quantum community — is the right person to conduct this retrospective, and Barnes & Thornburg, at the center of arguably the most sophisticated quantum ecosystem in the world, is the right place to do it.The conversation is structured as a celebration and an examination: what has Sebastian actually learned by sitting with nearly 100 physicists, engineers, founders, and policymakers? How has the field changed since that first visit to TJ Watson in 2017? What do regional hubs like the Illinois Quantum and Microelectronics Park and Quebec's DistriQ tell us about what it takes to move from science to industry? And what does the next era demand — not just from researchers and companies, but from everyone?---What You'll LearnWhy the Helgoland documentary matters: in June 2025, Sebastian and his wife traveled to the island where Heisenberg's 1925 insight gave birth to quantum mechanics, producing a documentary at a Yale–Max Planck centennial conference attended by multiple Nobel laureates — and what that experience distilled about the state of the fieldHow Sebastian's journey into quantum began: arriving at IBM's TJ Watson Research Center in 2017 to help with Qiskit's open source strategy, encountering the 53-qubit milestone, and recognizing the earliest stages of an emerging technology that would become his life's workWhat the "Heroic Age of Qubits" was — and why it ended: the period of genius PIs racing to prove quantum advantage, culminating in Google's 2019 random circuit sampling claim, and why that finish line turned out to be a starting lineWhat Harley Johnson and the IQMP reveal about ecosystem-building: why the Illinois Quantum and Microelectronics Park is the world's leading example of building a quantum ecosystem, and what it takes to bridge deep science and economic developmentWhat Quebec's DistriQ teaches about sustainability: the 90% public / 10% private funding model designed to flip over ten years, and why that benchmark matters for every regional hubWhy Alejandra Castillo's economic development lens changed the picture: how quantum's impact extends far beyond qubits into advanced manufacturing, supply chain, and the communities that get to participate in the upsideWhat Nadya Mason's leadership model means for the field: the dean of UChicago's Pritzker School who wasn't a "math person" and sees leadership as service — and why the field needs every kind of creative mind, not just PhDs in physicsWhat John Martinis's arc from the 1986 Josephson junction paper through the Nobel Prize to CoLab reveals: the transition from heroic-era physicist to systems thinker pursuing open architecture and consortium-based quantum computingWhy the Monte Carlo algorithm is the key analogy for quantum's future: the technique that took 30 years to find its commercial application as a reminder that the most important uses of quantum computers haven't been imagined yetWhere fault tolerance actually stands: why it's an emergent property of the whole system — not a single breakthrough — and why the classical-quantum feedback loop for mid-circuit measurement and syndrome correction is the thing to watchWhy multiple qubit modalities will coexist: the case for neutral atoms in the near term, superconducting and spin qubits in the long term, and photonics as a dark horse — and why this isn't a winner-take-all raceWhat Build Quantum Partners is building: a new venture to reduce friction for quantum companies entering the U.S. market, partner with regional ecosystems, and ultimately develop the quantum equivalent of biotech hub infrastructure---Resources & LinksGuest & Host LinksRobert W. Karr Jr. — Barnes & Thornburg Attorney Profile — Bob's firm bio covering his role as partner and QTI Group co-chairRobert W. Karr Jr. — LinkedIn — Recent activities including the Illinois–UK Quantum Partnerships Mission and Keidanren Next-Gen SalonQuantum Law Navigator — Chicago Quantum Exchange (PDF) — The ten-chapter resource Bob led, mapping the U.S. legal and regulatory landscape for quantumBarnes & Thornburg Quantum Technology Industry Group — The firm's quantum practice, host of the live recordingThe Book & DocumentaryThe New Quantum Era by Sebastian Hassinger — Released May 2026; the companion book tracing the people, science, and engineering behind quantum technology's emergenceHelgoland Documentary — In production; shot over five days at the Yale–Max Planck centennial conference on the island where Heisenberg formulated matrix mechanics in 1925Episodes & Guests ReferencedEpisode 82 — The Illinois Quantum Ecosystem with Harley Johnson — The IQMP's CEO on building the world's largest dedicated quantum technology parkEpisode 79 — Building a Quantum Ecosystem from Scratch with Martin Laforest — How Quebec built a $400M quantum ecosystem with a deliberate public-to-private capital transitionEpisode 75 — Regional Quantum Development with Alejandra Y. Castillo — Quantum through the economic development lens: jobs, supply chains, housing, and community participationEpisode 77 — Quantum Leadership with Nadya Mason — The dean of UChicago's Pritzker School on the human and institutional side of building the quantum eraEpisodes 48, 67, 71 — John Martinis — From Josephson junctions to the Google quantum supremacy experiment to the open-architecture approach at CoLabEpisode 96 — Funding the Quantum Middle with Kris Naudts and Zeynep Koruturk of Firgun Ventures — Why the Series A/B financing gap is the new bottleneck, and how specialist investors are stepping inKey Institutions & EcosystemIllinois Quantum and Microelectronics Park — Wikipedia — Overview of the $9B IQMP, its tenants,...

Στο δωμάτιο 113 η πόρτα μένει σφραγισμένη. Κρύβει ματωμένα μυστικά, κραυγές αγωνίας και 2 εβδομάδες απίστευτης φρίκης.Αν την ανοίξεις όμως, θα δεις μπροστά σου μια ψεύτικη εικόνα. Όλα τακτοποιημένα, προσεκτικά τοποθετημένα κάτω από ένα κρεββάτι... κλεισμένα σε μαύρα πλαστικά δοχεία.Μην την αφήσεις ανοιχτή.Γιατί το παρανοϊκό σκοτάδι θα σε τραβήξει κοντά του.

On April 29, 2026, in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court invalidated a Louisiana congressional map, holding that racial considerations cannot predominate in the drawing of electoral districts. The ruling narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by requiring plaintiffs to show intentional discrimination, not just discriminatory effects. In this episode, we explore the Court's 6-3 decision and what it means for the future of the Voting Rights Act with two leading election law scholars: Edward Foley of The Ohio State University and Michael Morley of Florida State University College of Law. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates.    Resources  Edward Foley, “The Supreme Court's indefensible evisceration of the Voting Rights Act,” SCOTUSblog, May 5, 2026  Michael Morley, “Voting Rights Case Sets Stage for 2050's Multiracial Democracy,” Bloomberg Law, May 6, 2026  Louisiana v. Callais (2026)  Allen v. Milligan (2023)   Robinson v. Ardoin (2022)  Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)  Shelby County v. Holder (2013)  Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)  Voting Rights Act (1965)  National Constitution Center, “The Supreme Court's Callais decision sets new framework for racial gerrymandering” (April 30, 2026)  National Constitution Center, Voting Rights Classroom Resources  National Constitution Center, Elections and Voting in the Constitution (Constitution 101 Curriculum) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

Sounds pitching coach Tyler Thornburg continues his conversation on the pregame show with Jeff Hem and talks about the staff's start to the year and early-season success stories such as Coleman Crow and Tate Kuehner, who Thornburg worked with last year at Double-A Biloxi.

Kent Thornburg is a Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Oregon Health and Science University. But he is far from retired. He’s actively promoting the research he and others have done into the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease. Thornburg coined the phrase “the 100 year effect” to describe how “early life environment” before and during  pregnancy can affect the lifetime risks of chronic diseases — and how those effects can actually be traced to not just  not just to both parents, but grandparents as well.   A new documentary about both the research, and Thornburg’s unconventional campaign meant to galvanize people and communities to spread the word about this research premiered at OHSU on March 20. The date was chosen in conjunction with the National Future Generations Day. “The 100 Year Effect” is now available to view free of charge by request for individuals or community screenings on the film website. Thornburg says the only way anything will change is if young people and community leaders get energized and motivated. That’s where people like Kelsey Mueller Wendt come in. She is herself a young mother and the coordinator for the Nutrition Oregon Campaign Hub in Klamath Falls. Mueller Wendt and Thornburg join us to share more about larger education campaign and the film, which is both a showcase and an invitation into the larger effort to eliminate chronic disease.

What if the secret to building a firm people know, like, and trust wasn't a slicker pitch deck… or a better track record?What if it was the audacity to just be yourself?Sweta Singh didn't wonder. She just built it.Before she was a founder, she was on the other side of the desk entirely, issuing bonds for the State of New York, watching how public money moves through communities, hospitals, schools, and retirement funds. Most portfolio managers never see that side. Sweta did. And she never forgot it.Twenty-five years later — Wellington, Income Research, Thornburg — she took the leap. City Different is what happened next.In this episode, Stacy Havener sits down with Sweta to talk boutique building, muni bonds, and why being "boring" in the right part of the portfolio is actually the goal. Listen in to hear: Sweta's backstory – From India to full scholarship to Albany bond issuer How she got hooked on finance (and why the policy/markets/human behavior collision lit her up)What issuing bonds before managing them taught her about how muni debt connects to real voters, real communities, and real consequencesThe City Different origin story: why the name is a love letter to Santa Fe (and a reminder to stay different)More about Sweta Singh:Sweta Singh is a fixed-income portfolio manager and co-founder of City Different Investments, with more than 25 years of industry experience. Her desire to constantly learn and adapt has been her greatest gift, and the thread that connects every chapter of her career.After immigrating to the U.S. and earning degrees from the University of Massachusetts (summa cum laude), the University of Texas at Austin, where she was awarded the Barbara Jordan Fellowship, and SUNY, she began her career in New York State's Debt Division, learning every aspect of bond issuance from the ground up.That other-side-of-the-desk foundation carried her through roles at Wellington Management, Income Research and Management, Breckinridge Capital Advisors, Thornburg Investment Management, and Wilkins Investment Counsel, building expertise across municipal bonds, corporate credit, agencies, and treasuries along the way.Sweta believes investing is dynamic and that its future belongs to the best of both human and machine. It's a belief she brings to life every day at City Different Investments. ---Running a fund is hard enough.Ops shouldn't be.Meet the team that makes it easier. | billiondollarbackstory.com/ultimus- - -Thinking about expanding your investor base beyond the US? Not sure where to start? Take our quick quiz to find out if your firm is ready to go global and get all the info at billiondollarbackstory.com/gemcap

On his episode of That Tech Pod, Kevin and Laura sit down with Ray Biederman, CEO and Co-Founder of Proteus Discovery Group, to talk about what actually happens when legal theory, technology, and human behavior collide. Ray walks through his unusual path from music education to law to legal tech, and how that background shaped the way he thinks about systems, judgment, and risk. Rather than chasing hype, he explains why Proteus focuses on defensible outcomes and practical decision-making in a crowded eDiscovery market.The conversation gets into lessons Ray has learned by wearing every hat, product builder, services leader, and still-practicing attorney. He shares what courtroom experience teaches that product teams often miss until something breaks, especially around context, intent, and how small mistakes compound once data starts moving. Ray also offers a measured take on AI-driven review, warning against the industry's tendency to overcorrect by trying to remove human judgment entirely, and highlights the ethical tensions that surface when AI reveals patterns no one anticipated. The episode closes with a forward-looking discussion on deepfake evidence, verification challenges, and the growing risk posed by data traveling across too many systems without enough accountability. Ray Biederman, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Proteus Discovery Group, LLC, has worked in every phase of electronic discovery for more than two decades. He is a Super Lawyer in the area of eDiscovery, has been cited in multiple court opinions as an expert witness, and is adjunct faculty for eDiscovery at the IUPUI School of Informatics and Computing. He consults on Information Governance policies and procedures related to cybersecurity and its intersection with government regulation and industry-specific best practices. Outside of his eDiscovery experience, Ray is an active litigator representing clients in product liability work, business valuation disputes, and contract disputes. He is also a founding partner in Mattingly Burke Cohen & Biederman. He was previously an associate at Barnes & Thornburg, LLP. He holds a B.M. in Music Education from Butler University and a J.D from Indiana University, the Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case rose to SCOTUS and was heard as a part of the OT24 term. The issues before the Court included (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.On June 27, 2025, rather than issue a decision on the case, the Supreme Court issued an order restoring the case to the OT 25 calendar for reargument. This time, the Court has explicitly granted the question of "Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Oral argument (round 2) is set for October 15, 2025.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School(Moderator) Brad A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group

Today on Scrolling 2 Death, Nicki sits down with Congressman Chris Deluzio—a dad of four and a fierce advocate for safer, healthier schools—to unpack one of the most urgent issues facing American families: screens in the classroom.Rep. Deluzio recently released a major report on smartphone use in schools after months of research and conversations with teachers, administrators, and parents across Western Pennsylvania. He breaks down what he found, why phone-free schools are gaining bipartisan momentum nationwide, and why Pennsylvania has struggled to pass similar legislation.Nicki and the Congressman go deeper, expanding the conversation beyond smartphones to the overlooked risks of school-issued devices, lack of oversight, and the growing push to introduce AI chatbots into middle-school classrooms. From data privacy to compulsive design to tech companies lobbying to stop states from regulating AI, this episode exposes the full ecosystem of digital harm entering our children's schools—often without parents' knowledge.The conversation ends with a call for bipartisan cooperation and real accountability: parents, educators, and lawmakers working together to ensure that technology in schools actually supports learning instead of undermining it.If you care about what your kids are exposed to at school, this is an episode you can't miss.Elected in 2022 and re-elected in 2024, Congressman Chris Deluzio is serving his second term in Congress representing the people of Pennsylvania's 17th Congressional District—where he serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Pennsylvania's 17th district includes all of Beaver County and parts of Allegheny County. Congressman Deluzio is a native of Thornburg and lives with his family in Allegheny County.Congressman Deluzio is an Iraq War veteran, voting rights attorney, and union organizer. He graduated from Bishop Canevin High School and received a Bachelor of Science degree with merit from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis.

Send us a textSteve Seid re-joins the Internal Use Only podcast for a deep dive on all things annual reviews and goal setting. Steve is currently a wholesaler, and previously was a Divisional Manager. We explore his process for conducting reviews with wholesalers (including the data sets used), how management teams decide AUM goals and territory goals, and more. Please consider supporting the show (link below) to help us continue bringing exceptional content to the sales/distribution community. Follow us on LinkedIn - Internal Use Only Check us out on Instagram for show updates, video clips, and weekly memes.Support the show

Jeff Thornburg has a wealth of experience, starting in the Air Force, Aerojet, NASA, SpaceX, and more. His experience in additive and space has now led him to start Portal Space Systems. Portal wants to make maneuverable satellites. This could be a real asset in case space is militarized, but even if it is not, more flexibility, different orbits, and additional capabilities could change what satellites can do. Taskable satellites and new propulsion systems can have a real impact on our planet and beyond. Jeff talks us through additive manufacturing in propulsion and why 3D printing in space is important. This episode of the 3DPOD is sponsored by EOS, a leading global partner for industrial 3D printing solutions in both metal and polymer. With decades of additive manufacturing expertise, technologies and partnerships, EOS empowers customers to innovate, differentiate and shape the future of manufacturing. 

Today I'm talking with my friends Shon and Jess Thornburg from Love Life about something very close to my heart: abortion, the church, and what it looks like to actually live out our pro-life convictions. You'll hear how God took a simple “yes” and used it to turn their church into a true House of Refuge—where babies are being saved, moms and dads are being loved, post-abortive men and women are finding healing, and ordinary believers are learning how to show up at the darkest places with the light of Christ. If you've ever wondered, “What can my church do?” or “Where do we even start?”, this episode will encourage you to get off the bench and into the battle for life.Prime Sponsor: No matter where you live, visit the Functional Medical Institute online today to connect with Drs Mark and Michele Sherwood. Go to homeschoolhealth.com to get connected and see some of my favorites items. Use coupon code HEIDI for 20% off!BRAVE Books | heidibrave.comLifestone Ministries | Lifestoneministries.com/heidiEquipping The Persecuted Coffee | ETPcoffee.comShow mentions: http://heidistjohn.com/mentionsWebsite | heidistjohn.comSupport the show! | donorbox.org/donation-827Rumble | rumble.com/user/HeidiStJohnYoutube | youtube.com/@HeidiStJohnPodcastInstagram | @‌heidistjohnFacebook | Heidi St. JohnX | @‌heidistjohnFaith That Speaks Online CommunitySubmit your questions for Fan Mail Friday | heidistjohn.net/fanmailfriday

On this episode, Taylor Thornburg, multi-media creator and fan talks about how to plug in to the local literary scene, his connection to physical media, and how he loves authors that are just entirely out of the box. We also talk about a lot of the great benefits of the Chicago reading life.    Agathe, 6:00 p.m. to 7:27   Books mentioned in this episode:    What Betsy's reading:  Katabasis by R.F. Kuang  Flashlight by Susan Choi    Books Highlighted by Taylor: Ubik by Philip K. Dick  In Praise of the Stepmother by Mario Vargas Llosa  White Cat, Black Dog by Kelly Link Lapovona by Ottessa Moshfegh My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante  Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov   All books available on my Bookshop.org episode page.   Other books mentioned in this episode: Herscht 07769 by Lázló Krasznahorkai Schattenfroh by Michael Lentz  The Instructions by Adam Levin The Möbius Book by Catherine Lacey  Bluets by Maggie Nelson  The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis  The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien  Frindle by Andrew Clements  Severance by Ling Ma  Bliss Montage by Ling Ma  Shadow Ticket by Thomas Pynchon  All Fours by Miranda July  My Year of Rest and Relaxation by Ottessa Moshfegh  Eileen by Ottessa Moshfegh  Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace  Chain Gang All Stars by Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah  North Woods by Daniel Mason

Send us a textSpecial Guests: Alex Thornburg and Ted V. Foote Jr., Authors of Being Presbyterian in a Dysvangelical America: A Guide to Reclaiming the Good News of God's Grace Question of the Week: Member of progressive and mainline denominations have shifted away from words like "missionary" and "evangelize" because of the rise of conservative Christianity and Christian nationalism. Is it possible to reclaim or reimagine these terms in ways that are not problematic and true to our own understanding of faith? Can we define ourselves by our own values, rather than simply pointing at the "other side" and claiming not to be like "those Christians"?Being Presbyterian in a Dysvangelical America: A Guide to Reclaiming the Good News of God's GraceFor Listening Guides, click here!Got a question for us? Send them to faithpodcast@pcusa.org! A Matter of Faith website

Leah Voigt, Chief Compliance Officer, Corewell Health, and Anthony J. Burba, Partner, Barnes & Thornburg, discuss takeaways from recent health care fraud enforcement activity, recent compliance guidance from DOJ and OIG, and practical steps that health care companies can take to address, mitigate, and remediate risks in key focus areas for the government. Anthony and Leah spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2025 Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PviibFEEEpELearn more about the AHLA 2025 Annual Meeting that took place in San Diego, CA: https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/annualmeeting Essential Legal Updates, Now in Audio AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast. Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.

In this episode of The Birth Lounge Podcast, HeHe sits down with Dr. Brian Thornburg, a board-certified pediatrician, to tackle one of the most overwhelming parts of early parenthood: newborn procedures and vaccine decisions. From the very first hours after birth, parents are presented with a whirlwind of choices—Vitamin K, Hep B, eye ointment, vaccine schedules—and it can feel impossible to sort fact from fear. Dr. Thornburg breaks down what's truly evidence-based, what questions to ask your care team, and how to advocate for your baby with confidence. Together, they explore: How your newborn's immune system really works (and mom's role in it!) The ins and outs of Vitamin K, Hep B, and erythromycin at birth How antibiotics during labor may impact your baby's gut health Alternative vaccine schedules and what research actually says Hot-button topics like vaccine shedding, autoimmunity, and long-term impacts This conversation is about informed consent—not scare tactics. You'll walk away empowered to make decisions that feel right for your family while knowing exactly how to navigate conversations with your providers. 05:09 – Meet Dr. Thornburg: advocacy in pediatrics 08:50 – Newborn immune system + maternal impact 18:49 – Vaccinations in pregnancy: risks + research gaps 34:41 – Newborn procedures explained (Vitamin K, Hep B, erythromycin) 53:11 – Antibiotics, Group B Strep, and gut health 01:00:43 – Gut microbiome, leaky gut, and autoimmunity 01:04:28 – Navigating vaccine schedules + global perspectives 01:19:15 – Making vaccine choices: categories, delays, and risks 01:28:29 – Adverse reactions, VAERS, and herd immunity 01:39:08 – Vaccine shedding + payment myths 01:44:57 – Finding a vaccine-friendly pediatrician Guest Bio: Dr. Thornburg Wellness focuses on educating families on health and wellness through the generations by the birth of their babies and raising of their children. INSTAGRAM: Connect with HeHe on IG  Connect with HeHe on YouTube BIRTH EDUCATION: Join The Birth Lounge here for judgment-free childbirth education that prepares you for an informed birth and how to confidently navigate hospital policy to have a trauma-free labor experience!   Download The Birth Lounge App for birth & postpartum prep delivered straight to your phone!   LINKS MENTIONED: www.drthornburg.com

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255. Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable. Featuring: Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP (Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC

What will the future of space look like? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Chuck Nice explore the engineering challenges and scientific questions shaping the next era of aerospace with aerospace engineer Jeff Thornburg.NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/the-new-space-race-with-jeff-thornburg/Thanks to our Patrons Adam Jensen, Eric Forde, Jaren Foreman, Robert Collier, Ryan Sanderson, Michael Franklin, Tiffiany Amber, MSegars, Clinton Hays, Rob, Wesley Michel, Aaron Wright, Vi Rose, James Sorensen, Jamie, David, Russell Knecht (Connect), John T McCoy, Ben Ryan, Fidel Roque-Flores, Eric walburn METZLER, Joseph Strasser, Daniel Ludlow, William Sacher, William Nowottny, Jay Sackett, Bryan Poole, Trevor Walter, Chiem Ma, Robert Rice, Lex Townes, Cavvote Landes, Franny, Keith Dickson, Bill Gallerani, Rosemary Taylor, Lisa Holloway, Jim Staub, Stiven Miranda, Erica, Jon Nebenfuhr, Ranjam69, David R Dykes, Micky Pistillo, Tony Toon, sr, April Lorenzo Spoor, Tom Randall, Jeff, Nico Cerceo, Sterling GRiffin, John, Red Shi, Pete Stoppani, Jonathan Hyatt, Dylan Moore, Shawn Kalas, Eric Dickinson, Kiela Badeaux, Leyna McGrath, Armaghan, bmanone, Much More Matt, Patrick Ritter, Laszlo Zoltan Buru, Indiigo, Isaiah, Brett Sklar, Brian Pickett, Micheal Kaplan, Cecilia, PopoMakBeth, and Shawn Best for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Just today in clinic, we had a patient, who was well into her third trimester, come to her regular scheduled appointment with new onset left-sided facial droop. Yeah, that's concerning! A complete history and physical was performed and the diagnosis was made of Bell's palsy. This is not a rare event and it can be extremely stressful for the affected mother to be because everybody knows facial droop is not normal! And we have recent data regarding this. In July 2025 in the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, authors confirmed that Bell's palsy can have real negative functional and psychosocial implications for those affected. So, in this episode, we are going to discuss Bell's palsy in pregnancy. How do we differentiate this from the more serious differential, which is a stroke? What about treatment? Listen in for details. 1. Wesley, Shaun R. MD; Vates, G. Edward MD, PhD; Thornburg, Loralei L. MD. Neurologic Emergencies in Pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 144(1):p 25-39, July 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/AOG.00000000000055752. Vrabec JT, Isaacson B, Van Hook JW. Bell's Palsy and Pregnancy.Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery : Official Journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2007;137(6):858-61. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2007.09.009.3. Evangelista V, Gooding MS, Pereira L.Bell's Palsy in Pregnancy.Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 2019;74(11):674-678. doi:10.1097/OGX.00000000000007324. JPRAS (July 2025): https://www.jprasurg.com/article/S1748-6815(25)00328-6/fulltextSTRONG COFFEE PROMO: 20% Off Strong Coffee Company https://strongcoffeecompany.com/discount/CHAPANOSPINOBG

VettaFi's Head of Research Todd Rosenbluth discussed the Thornburg Multi Sector Bond ETF (TMB) on this week's “ETF of the Week” podcast with Chuck Jaffe of “Money Life.” Why should you attend Exchange? Exchange gives advisors access to subject matter experts and developmental opportunities across all of the dimensions of their professional portfolio. Invest in your greatest asset – yourself. To learn more visit https://www.exchangeetf.com/registration

Doug Oldham from Barnes & Thornburg is back on the show sharing the nuances of personnel files. What should go in and what should stay out? He also shares the different state rules on who can see and who can copy a personnel file upon request.

On todays Show Madelynn and the Fearsome Threesome talk about he legal case of Robinson vs. Callais, involving Louisiana's redistricting post-2020 census. The plaintiffs, primarily black political participation groups, argued that the new districts violated the Voting Rights Act by using tactics like packing and cracking to dilute black voting power. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing the Thornburg v. Jingles test, which requires minority groups to be sufficiently large and geographically compact. The court ordered Louisiana to redraw its maps to provide more opportunities for black voters. The conversation also touched on the broader implications of gerrymandering and the role of race in redistricting. Don't miss it!

Health is one of the biggest economic and societal issues in the U.S., and the conversation around vaccines has never been more complex—or more personal.Board-Certified Pediatrician Dr. Brian Thornburg joins Futures Edge with Jim Iuirio and Bob Iaccio to guide parents through the evolving world of vaccines and children's healthcare. From the impact of COVID-19 on vaccine perceptions to the rise of mRNA technology, Dr. Thornburg breaks down why being an informed parent has never been more crucial.In this episode, you'll learn:- How COVID-19 reshaped trust in vaccines and fueled hesitancy- Why evaluating each vaccine individually matters more than ever- The vital role of nutrition in childhood growth and long-term health- How Big Pharma influences public health policies and vaccine guidelines- Practical ways parents can take charge of their children's healthcare decisionsTIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Introduction and Housekeeping01:26 The Economic Impact of Health03:07 Vaccine Hesitancy and COVID-1904:38 Understanding Vaccine Schedules07:44 The Role of Parents in Vaccine Decisions09:31 Long-term Effects of COVID-19 and Vaccines11:06 Vaccine Neutrality and Patient Autonomy12:56 The Evolution of Vaccine Perspectives17:23 Global Vaccine Perspectives21:49 The Influence of Big Pharma on Vaccination Policies26:49 The Influence of Big Pharma28:21 Understanding Vaccines: Definitions and Misconceptions32:33 The Immune System and Vaccination Timing35:10 Toxins in Vaccines and Their Impact41:32 Long-term Safety and Vaccine Concerns43:08 RFK's Role in Vaccine Discussion44:35 Nutrition's Role in Child Health48:53 The Standard American Diet and Its Effects

In this critical episode of Simply Trade Roundup, international trade expert Luis Arandia breaks down the complex tariff changes affecting businesses on August 1st. Learn about new duties on copper, Canada tariff adjustments, and upcoming de minimis treatment suspensions that could dramatically impact your import strategies. Key Discussion Points: 50% tariffs on copper imports Canada tariff increases from 25% to 35% Transshipment challenges and penalties Elimination of duty-free de minimis treatment Critical strategies for trade compliance Guest Contact: Luis Arandia International Trade Partner Barnes and Thornburg: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luisarandia  Luis reveals the three essential pillars for navigating these changes: classification, origin, and valuation. Whether you're dealing with copper products, Canadian imports, or international shipments, this episode provides crucial insights for staying compliant and minimizing financial risks.

Steeds meer institutionele partijen stappen in crypto. Dat blijkt uit een nieuw rapport van het Amerikaanse advocatenkantoor Barnes & Thornburg. In dat rapport zijn honderden professionele beleggers en fondsbeheerders ondervraagd, die actief zijn in de Verenigde Staten. Het gaat daarbij nadrukkelijk niet om een zelf-feliciterend onderzoekje uit de cryptowereld zelf, maar om een juridisch kantoor dat opereert binnen het traditionele financiële systeem. De respondenten geven aan dat ze cryptovaluta inmiddels serieus overwegen als onderdeel van hun portfolio. Veel van hen investeren niet voor het eerst, en ook niet op goed geluk. Dat suggereert dat het om strategische langetermijnkeuzes gaat, waarbij onder meer risicoafdekking en rendement een rol spelen. Ook biedt de institutionele interesse mogelijk houvast voor verdere groei van de sector. Daarbij wordt vaak naar de Verenigde Staten gekeken, maar ook in Europa en Nederland zien partijen de eerste bewegingen. De verschillen zijn echter groot: in Europa lijken de eerste instanties net wakker te worden. Toch is het beeld duidelijk dat de cryptosector wereldwijd serieuzer wordt genomen door professionele investeerders. Ondertussen kende Bitcoin zelf een onrustige week. De koers daalde richting de 115.000 dollar, nadat een groot volume Bitcoin op de markt zou zijn gebracht door Galaxy Digital, een bekende partij binnen de industrie. Volgens berichten ging het om 80.000 munten, een hoeveelheid die normaal gesproken veel grotere impact zou hebben. Dat de koers vervolgens weer snel richting de 120.000 dollar herstelde, wijst mogelijk op robuuste vraag in de markt. Daarnaast zijn ook altcoins in opmars, met Ethereum als koploper. Analisten zien dat de zogenoemde bitcoindominantie afneemt: het aandeel van Bitcoin ten opzichte van de rest van de cryptomarkt wordt kleiner. Dat kan duiden op een nieuwe fase in de cyclus, waarbij beleggers meer risico durven nemen. Verder stelt ECB-adviseur Jürgen Schaaf dat de digitale euro het moeilijk gaat krijgen tegenover stabiele cryptodollars. In een nieuw blog noemt hij dollar-stablecoins zelfs een mogelijk risico voor het Europese financiële systeem. Tegelijk stelt hij dat Europa meer moet doen om euro-stablecoins te steunen. Schaaf laat daarmee een ander geluid horen dan in 2022, toen hij Bitcoin nog afschreef als voorbijgaand fenomeen. Co-hosts zijn Bert en Peter Slagter, beiden analist bij kennisplatform Bitcoin Alpha. Gasten Bert Slagter Peter Slagter Links Host Daniël Mol Redactie Daniël MolSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While enforcement under the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute traditionally focused on billing practices, regulators now scrutinize routine business practices such as marketing, vendor relationships, and operational tasks—especially when tied to government benefits. Nicki Jacobsen, Director, Stout, and Astrid Monroig, Associate, Barnes & Thornburg, discuss two recent federal settlements involving speaker programs and the misuse of government postage discounts. They explore the key compliance risks and takeaways for health care organizations, along with broader enforcement trends. Sponsored by Stout.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTooflWQpvYLearn more about Stout: https://www.stout.com Essential Legal Updates, Now in Audio AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast. Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Part 2 of 2. Two years after the murder of 32-year-old Lauren Whitener, a potential suspect emerged when the dismembered bodies of three people were found burning in a Fort Worth dumpster. The person who murdered them, Jason Alan Thornburg, was apprehended relatively quickly and readily confessed to two other murders as well. A few years before Thornburg's conviction for the three murders, the prime suspect in Lauren's murder, Rodney Aric Maxwell, was released on bond after sitting in a Wise County jail for almost 6 months. Not long after that, the charges against him were dismissed. Although Sheriff Lane Akin insists Maxwell is their guy, none of the evidence they originally used against him linked him to Lauren's murder at all.If you have any information about the murder of Lauren Anee Whitener, please contact the Wise County Sheriff's Office at 940-627-5971 or Texas Crime Stoppers at 940-627-8477You can support gone cold and listen to the show ad-free at patreon.com/gonecoldpodcastFind us at https://www.gonecold.comFor Gone Cold merch, visit https://gonecold.dashery.comFollow gone cold on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, YouTube, and X. Search @gonecoldpodcast at all or just click linknbio.com/gonecoldpodcastSources: The Wise County Messenger, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Dallas Morning News, NBCdfw.com, Fox4news.com, CBSnews.com, WFAA.com, and Court Documents #JusticeForLaurenWhitener #WiseCounty #WiseCountyTX #TX #Texas #TrueCrime #TexasTrueCrime #ColdCase #TrueCrimePodcast #Podcast #ColdCase #Unsolved #Murder #UnsolvedMurder #UnsolvedMysteries #Homicide #CrimeStories #PodcastRecommendations #CrimeJunkie #MysteryPodcast #TrueCrimeObsessed #CrimeDocs #InvestigationDiscovery #PodcastAddict #TrueCrimeFan #CriminalJustice #ForensicFilesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gone-cold-texas-true-crime--3203003/support.

Jeff Thornburg helped build Raptor at SpaceX. Now he's building something new: a spacecraft designed for rapid maneuverability across orbits powered by solar thermal propulsion.In this episode of Valley of Depth, we get into the technical, strategic, and commercial implications of in-space mobility and why it matters now. Topics include:The hardest parts of building a rocket engine (and why most startups get it wrong)The origins of the Raptor engine and lessons from SpaceXWhy Portal is betting on solar thermal propulsionHow Supernova enables fast, responsive movement across LEO, MEO, and GEOThe case for refueling in orbit and designing without dependenciesWhy defense needs faster spacecraft and what commercial use cases followHow Thornburg sees Starship changing the economics of spaceand much more… • Chapters •00:00 – Intro01:44 – What drew Jeff to creating engines?05:13 – Why is building rocket engines still so difficult?11:50 – Jeff's time at SpaceX17:52 – Stratolaunch and Commonwealth Fusion and why Jeff moved on22:50 – Origin of Portal25:25 – Commercial use case27:00 – 5 year vision for Portal's architecture32:01 – Pricing34:52 – Solar thermal propulsion38:14 – What comes after Portal's Supernova?41:15 – Customer traction and Supernova flight45:44 – Competition in solar thermal propulsion49:20 – Fundraising prior to the first launch51:18 – Portal in the next 10 years54:53 – State of Starship • Show notes •Jeff's socials — https://x.com/JeffThornburgAntares' socials — https://x.com/PortalSpaceSysAntares' website — https://www.portalsystems.space/Mo's socials — https://twitter.com/itsmoislamPayload's socials — https://twitter.com/payloadspace / https://www.linkedin.com/company/payloadspaceIgnition's socials — https://twitter.com/ignitionnuclear /  https://www.linkedin.com/company/ignition-nuclear/Tectonic's socials  — https://twitter.com/tectonicdefense / https://www.linkedin.com/company/tectonicdefense/Valley of Depth archive — Listen: https://pod.payloadspace.com/ • About us •Valley of Depth is a podcast about the technologies that matter — and the people building them. Brought to you by Arkaea Media, the team behind Payload (space), Ignition (nuclear energy), and Tectonic (defense tech), this show goes beyond headlines and hype. We talk to founders, investors, government officials, and military leaders shaping the future of national security and deep tech. From breakthrough science to strategic policy, we dive into the high-stakes decisions behind the world's hardest technologies.Payload: www.payloadspace.comIgnition: www.ignition-news.comTectonic: www.tectonicdefense.com

As we continue our tour of the US National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines, today we're headed to North Carolina.Tim Bertram and Jesse Thornburg of the Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medicine Engine are taking us into the lab to give us a crash course in what regenerative medicine is, and how their Engine is helping regenerative medicine companies build, grow, and scale in the Piedmont Triad region through access to world-class resources, expertise, space, and collaboration opportunities to create economic impact.Tim is currently serving as CEO for the Regenerative Medicine Engine funded by the National Science Foundation, focusing on economic development through translation and commercialization of regenerative medical technologies. He was previously founder and CEO of four biotechnology companies, served on the board of directors of multiple companies, and worked on the development of 8 registered medical products while serving as a scientific leader and senior executive at Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE}, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, and The Procter & Gamble Company {NYSE: PG}. He started his career as a faculty member at the University of Illinois, was a visiting scientist at the National Institutes of Health, authored over 150 publications and invented over 100 patents.Jesse has worked as a researcher and in operations, building diverse research teams in a Comprehensive Cancer Center and Clinical Translational Science Institute.  His business experience stems from starting and operating a successful business and setting up a trust to provide capital to help growing businesses scale. Dr. Thornburg is passionate about helping businesses and economic ecosystems change lives.Listen to the full episode to hear:How advances in regenerative medicine can positively impact outcomes for both patients and the healthcare system at largeHow the Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medicine Engine is working to develop an integrated supply chain for regenerative therapies in order to scaleHow the regenerative medicine ecosystem encompasses patients, workforce, researchers, entrepreneurs, businesses, and moreHow the Regenerative Medicine Engine is fostering collaboration among companies that is pushing growth forwardWhat we stand to lose regionally, nationally, and even globally if we don't continue to invest in regenerative medicineLearn more about Tim Bertram:Connect On LinkedInLearn more about Jesse Thornburg:Connect on LinkedInLearn more about Anika Horn:Social VenturersSign up for Impact CuratorInstagram: @socialventurersResources:Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medical EngineStan ParkerFettechJoshua BogerAnthony Atala: Printing a human kidney | TED Talk

Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature"s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

VettaFi's Head of Research Todd Rosenbluth discussed the Thornburg International Equity ETF (TXUE) on this week's “ETF of the Week” podcast with Chuck Jaffe of “Money Life.” Join us for our Midyear Market Outlook Symposium, where we'll talk through recent market action and explore opportunities in asset classes, styles, factors, and themes going forward. Register now here: https://www.etftrends.com/webcasts/midyear-market-outlook-symposium-2025/?partnerref=trends_nav

In this episode of the Wise Decision Maker Show, Dr. Gleb Tsipursky speaks to Nick Sarokhanian, Head of AI Practice at Barnes & Thornburg, about the legal implications of Gen AI.You can learn about Barnes & Thornburg at https://btlaw.com/en

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

Dr. Thornburg is a renowned dermatologist and aesthetics expert. Her practice is based in Rapid City, South Dakota. Today she launches her brand new book “Chasing Beauty”! This episode is not just a promotion of the book but a dive into medicine, Lycia's story, and the strength of chasing your dreams. You will love this one!

Something to whet your appetite. Get listener benefits (early bird releases, bonus episodes, ad-free listening at Supporting Cast: https://humanmonsters.supportingcast.fm The Leader One Studios/Human Monsters Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/leaderone HUMO merch available here: https://leader-one-studios-shop.fourthwall.com/products/human-monsters-unisex-t-shirt Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CONNECT WITH JULIE MATTSON:• Website: https://pushinguplilies.com• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pushinguplilies

(Lander, WY) – The KOVE 1330 AM / 107.7 FM Today in the 10 interview series Coffee Time continued today with host Vince Tropea, who recently spoke with Nick Thornburg, the marketing and digital specialist at Wyoming PBS. Thornburg stopped by to chat about an upcoming project that "aims to capture the spirit of our state through the stories of its people," where Wyoming PBS will be collecting personal stories from Wyomingites that showcase what it truly means to be resident of the Cowboy State. Wyoming PBS will be conducting test shoots today, Nov. 15 and tomorrow, Nov. 16, at Riverton's Central Wyoming College campus (at the Wyoming PBS studio today, and at the Intertribal Education and Community Center (ITECC) on Saturday.) While details remain somewhat sparse right now, the hope is to preserve these stories in a digital archive, and they may potentially be featured in a future documentary project. You can sign up for a storytelling spot and get more details here , and hear more from Thornburg in the full Coffee Time interview below! Be sure to tune in to Today in the 10 and Coffee Time interviews every morning from 7:00 to 9:00 AM on KOVE 1330 AM / 107.7 FM, or stream it live right here.

Can the markets' pro-growth, risk-on message of the past week be trusted? And how has it changed the setup into the year's final stretch? Our all-star panel of Sofi's Liz Young, Metlift's Drew Matus and Thornburg's Emily Leveille break down where they stand. Plus, Sherry Paul of Morgan Stanley Private Wealth breaks down her year-end playbook. And, we run through what to watch from Instacart, Occidental Petroleum and Flutter when those names report in Overtime. 

Is there enough good news to keep stocks climbing toward new record highs? Hightower's Stephanie Link, BMO's Brian Belski and Thornburg's Emily Leveille break down their forecasts. Plus, EMJ's Eric Jackson tells us which tech name he recently sold out of… but is considering getting back into. And, we run you through what's at stake from Zoom's earnings report after the bell. 

Unlock the keys to effective business structuring, master tax optimization, and learn how to build solid business credit in this enlightening discussion. Gain crucial insights into protecting your assets and enhancing profitability, whether you're starting fresh or scaling up. Dive into this episode for practical advice and essential strategies that every entrepreneur needs to thrive in today's competitive business landscape.

In episode 552, Megan chats to Parker Thornburg about his recent experience of buying an existing blog, how it is different to starting a new one and practical advice for succeeding as a blogger regardless of which path you choose. Parker Thornburg worked at Yahoo for 8 years in Omaha, NE. After Parker left Yahoo to enter the startup world, he told his manager of 8 years that he wanted to stay connected and possibly even own a business together someday. That day came in April 2023 when they purchased a food blog, Foodness Gracious, that had been established since 2012. They continue to work full-time jobs while spending all of their spare time trying to grow Foodness Gracious. Parker has an amazing wife of 23 years and three great children aged 18, 16 and 11. In this episode, you'll learn about which factors you should evaluate before buying or selling an existing blog (or starting a new one), including time, energy, goals, and budget, and making sure your passion aligns with the blog's niche and target audience. Key points discussed: - Time and energy considerations are important when deciding to buy or sell a blog: How much time and effort is required to keep the blog going and is it worth it? - Passion for the topic is important: Don't pursue a niche that you do not really feel passionate about. - Know your strengths and weaknesses: Outsource tasks that you feel less confident in and focus on tasks that you are skilled at. - Change the blog design only if it really makes an improvement: Analyze your analytics to know what impact your design had. - Audience engagement must be maintained during transitions: Try to smoothly transition ownership by respecting the previous owner's vision and followers. - Social media isn't always traffic-driving: You can focus on posting regularly for followers but don't have to obsess over engagement metrics. - Intentionality helps prevent burnout: To maintain a healthy work-life balance set clear boundaries. Connect with Parker Thornburg Website | Instagram

Acquiring an existing food blog, navigating traffic drops, and reimagining a site to make it your own with Parker Thornburg from Foodness Gracious. ----- Welcome to episode 457 of The Food Blogger Pro Podcast! This week on the podcast, Bjork interviews Parker Thornburg from Foodness Gracious. How to Acquire and Grow a Food Blog Starting a food blog or business is hard work. It can take months (years!) of determination, practice, and consistency before you start to see results. So what if you just… skipped ahead?! That's exactly what Parker Thornburg and his business partner did when they acquired the existing food blog, Foodness Gracious. But just because the site was up and running (with thousands of recipes!) doesn't mean the transition has been an easy or seamless one. In this interview, Parker shares more about the process of acquiring a site, what the transition has been like, how they've navigated hiring and traffic drops, and have started to come out the other side. Whether or not you're thinking about acquiring a site (or selling your own), there are lots of great lessons to be learned for anyone! In this episode, you'll learn: More about Parker's professional background (including time at Yahoo and a start-up). Why Parker decided to acquire an existing food blog. About the process of acquiring a site and using a brokerage site. What factors to consider when acquiring a site (including calculating potential profits). How they hired their team and what the early days of the site looked like after acquisition (including lots of lessons learned). How Parker and his business partner have navigated traffic drops since acquiring their site. The importance of consistency and habits when trying something new. How he balances his full-time job, family life, and growing Foodness Gracious. What he wants the legacy of this site to be. Resources: Foodness Gracious Buy Then Build: How Acquisition Entrepreneurs Outsmart the Startup Game QuietLight Empire Flippers 032: Buying & Selling Websites with Mark Daoust from Quiet Light 159: Different Ways to Create an Income Online with Mark Daoust Mediavine beehiiv Maray Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones Snackdive Follow Foodness Gracious on Instagram and Facebook Join the Food Blogger Pro Podcast Facebook Group ----- This episode is sponsored by CultivateWP and Memberful. Learn more about our sponsors at foodbloggerpro.com/sponsors. Interested in working with us too? Learn more about our sponsorship opportunities and how to get started here. If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions for interviews, be sure to email them to podcast@foodbloggerpro.com. Learn more about joining the Food Blogger Pro community at foodbloggerpro.com/membership.

Back at it again with another great episode!This episode is sponsored by RogersHood.com Save 10% code IDM on your order!Featuring Dr. Brian Thornburg DO PA, Board Certified Pediatrician and owner of Thornburg Wellness in sunny Florida."Our journey began in a medical office with a dream of making lasting changes beyond the four walls of the examination room. Our approach combines common sense, scientific research, and natural methods, which has helped thousands of children and their families connect with lasting, vibrant health.At Dr. Thornburg Wellness, we are not influenced by 'Big Pharma.' Instead, our products are carefully selected for their quality, efficacy, and safety. We offer a range of supplements free from harmful chemicals and additives so that you can feel confident in your family's health.We are committed to taking our message beyond the medical practice and to the people.”Learn more https://drthornburg.com/Sponsor RogersHood.comGet involved InformedDissentMedia.comSupport the showFor more Informed Dissent visit our website at Informed Dissent Media Follow us on Social media @InformedDissentMedia