Podcasts about Thornburg

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

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efdLouisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109 [Arg: 3.24.2025] 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.The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

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

Un tueur en série. Trois victimes. Des actes inimaginables de cannibalisme. Plongez dans l'enquête la plus dérangeante de l'année. Découvrez l'histoire choquante de Jason Thornburg, le cannibale condamné à mort. Un thriller criminel effrayant qui ne vous laissera pas indifférentVous pouvez me retrouver sur :

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. 

With the popularity of recreational and medical marijuana how is a company to enforce a drug policy? Just finding employees that don't use marijuana is a struggle but ignoring the possible risks and harm drug use can have in the workplace is not the answer any of us can afford to practice. Doug Oldham from Barnes and Thornburg in Columbus, Ohio joins Pandy to discuss how to craft an effective drug policy when considering marijuana in the workplace.

In this special edition of the CMO Series Podcast we're taking you back to a special moment from our first-ever stateside CMO Series Live Conference held in New York City this past summer. The day started with an incredible session led by Trish Lilley, now the Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer at Barnes & Thornburg. With over 25 years of experience in legal marketing, Trish has a wealth of knowledge, and she didn't hold back in sharing it. Her masterclass focused on driving meaningful transformation within firms and offered practical advice for CMOs on how to gain influence both within their teams and across firm leadership. In this episode of the Passle CMO Series Podcast, we're thrilled to bring you the full recording of Trish's session. You'll hear her insights on everything from building stronger relationships with stakeholders to demonstrating executive presence, as well as some fantastic anecdotes from her remarkable career in legal marketing.

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.

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.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Allen v Milligan. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U-S House seats violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? The case was decided on June 8, 2023. The Supreme Court held that The district court correctly applied binding Supreme Court precedent to conclude that Alabama's redistricting map likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court. The Court's decision in Thornburg v Gingles sets out a three-part framework for evaluating claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, the plaintiffs must prove that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district (measured by criteria such as contiguity and compactness). Second, the plaintiffs must show that the minority group is politically cohesive. Third, the plaintiffs must show that under the totality of the circumstances, the political process is not “equally open” to minority voters. The majority applied that three-part framework to the facts in the record and agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their challenge. The plaintiffs submitted maps demonstrating the traditional districting criteria, and the district court found “no serious dispute” that Black voters are politically cohesive or that the challenged districts' white majority consistently defeated Black voters' preferred candidates. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion except for a discussion of the difference between race-consciousness and race-predominance. He concurred separately to emphasize and clarify four additional points. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined in full, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito joined in part. Justice Thomas argued that Section 2 of the VRA does not require Alabama to redraw its congressional districts so that Black voters can control a number of seats proportional to Black voters in its population. Justice Alito authored a dissenting opinion in which Justice Gorsuch joined arguing that the majority's understanding of Gingles—specifically its understanding of the phrase “reasonably configured” within the context of the first precondition—is flawed, and that a correct understanding would lead to a different result in this case. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

SEASON 6, BONUS PODCASTMJ - The MusicalJuly 9-12, 2024Broadway Grand RapidsMore info: broadwaygrandrapids.com/mjIn this podcast, John Gonzalez of Behind the Mitten interviews J. Daughtry, who plays Berry Gordy in the National Broadway Tour of "MJ - The Musical."He is a seasoned pro who came into theatre in a non-traditional way. He was teaching at a private school in Maryland, when his principal tapped him to fill in when the school's theater teacher suddendly passed away. They knew he could sing, but they didn't realize how talented he was. It was the school principal who pushed him to audition in New York.He has since performed on Broadway ("The Color Purple," "Beautiful," "Ain't Too Proud") and also toured the country on National tours ("Miss Saigon," "The Color Purple," "Motown: The Musical"). He also continues to perform his music professionally and is a two-time Grammy nominee as well as a winner of multiple Stellar and Dove Awards.He is a graduate of Bethune Cookman University. He is a Theatrical, Gospel and R&B singer/actor on both stage and screen. He is originally from Bartow, Florida, and he talks about why loves about that part of the country."MJ" is a multi Tony Award-winning new musical centered around the making of the 1992 Dangerous World Tour. It was created by Tony Award-winning Director/Choreographer Christopher Wheeldon and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Lynn Nottage. "MJ" is making its Michigan premiere at the Devos Performance Hall in  Grand Rapids.PERFORMANCESTuesday, July 9, 2024 - 7:30pmWednesday, July 10, 2024 - 7:30pmThursday, July 11, 2024 - 7:30pmFriday, July 12, 2024 - 7:30pmSaturday, July 13, 2024 - 2:00pmSaturday, July 13, 2024 - 7:30pmSunday, July 14, 2024 - 1:00pmSunday, July 14, 2024 - 6:30pmThis Grand Rapids engagement is welcomed by Barnes & Thornburg, LLP; Corewell Health; Edify North; UFP Industries.

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

Anthony J. Burba, Partner, Barnes & Thornburg, Henry C. Leventis, United States Attorney, Middle District of Tennessee, and Ted Lotchin, Chief Compliance Officer, UNC Health, discuss new and developing risks and opportunities amid the changing health care compliance landscape. They cover the DOJ's main areas of focus, key compliance trends and priorities, challenges related to self-disclosure, and the increased utilization of technology in health care. Anthony, Henry, and Ted spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2024 Advising Providers: Legal Strategies for AMCs, Physicians, and Hospitals, in New Orleans, LA.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

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.

My guest for today's interview is Joshua Franklin, a distinguished attorney dedicated to honorable achievement in every facet of his career. Hailing from Brooklyn, NY, and a proud graduate of an HBCU, Joshua currently resides in Minnesota, where he has left an indelible mark on the legal landscape. With a wealth of experience ranging from serving at prestigious firms like Barnes & Thornburg, LLP to his current role facilitating connections between attorneys and small to midsize firms, Joshua brings a unique perspective to the table. Beyond his legal career, Joshua is deeply committed to building sustainable equity in urban communities through innovation and small business initiatives. He is a passionate advocate for fairness and justice, regularly contributing to industry discussions and advocating for favorable legal frameworks. Joshua's dedication to mentorship and professional development also shines through, as he actively guides aspiring entrepreneurs, start-ups, students, and young professionals.

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

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

We kick off our new "Love & Legal Tech" series this week where we embark on a journey to explore the personal and professional lives of couples in the legal tech industry. We are excited to interview couples who share in the excitement of weaving their professional endeavors into their personal relationships. We think this is going to be a great series where couples get a chance to tell their stories of how they balance what one of our guests describes as "Work-Life-Integration." Our inaugural guests, Alex Macdonald and Cassie Vertovec share their unique story of how a solid professional collaboration slowly turned into a deep, personal connection.  Alex, the Chief Strategy Officer at McCarter and English, LLP, and Cassie, the Practice Director of Corporate and Director of Practice Strategies at Barnes & Thornburg, began their journey in the legal tech world at Seyfarth Shaw.  Over the years they have found themselves leading teams together, moving across the country, isolating together during the pandemic, and most recently working in similar firms. They navigated their careers with mutual respect and understanding, highlighting the importance of communication and shared values in both their professional and personal lives. They provide insights into the dynamics of working as a couple while maintaining a balance between work and persona life. Which is no easy feat as they are both intertwined with the legal profession. Their story is a testament to the idea that professional collaboration can lead to personal growth and deeper connections. Our hopes with the "Love & Legal Tech" series are that we not only offer a glimpse into the lives of a couple navigating love and legal tech but also shed light on broader themes within the legal industry, including the shift towards greater tech integration and the challenges and opportunities it presents. Our sincere thanks to Cassie and Alex for sharing their story with us on this series premiere. Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ Contact Us:  Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Threads: @glambertpod or @gebauerm66Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Transcript

Beth and Debbie engage in a candid conversation with Sarah Evenson, Director of Law School Programs at Barnes and Thornburg. Sarah shares her unique journey from practicing law to legal management, highlighting the pivotal moments that shaped her career. The episode explores leadership insights, challenges faced, and valuable tips for recruiting and retaining talent, emphasizing the power of authenticity and compassion in professional growth.    Check out the show notes for this episode on our website.   Connect with us: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Since Thornburg Investment Management's last conversation with CEF Insights, some market dynamics have changed. Amid resilient economic growth, daunting federal deficits, an upcoming election and other factors, Thornburg's Christian Hoffmann shares the latest views on its global multi-asset strategy for income, potential opportunities, and the broader market outlook for 2024. Listen to the episode and view the transcript below.   Thornburg is a privately held global investment firm delivering on strategy for institutions, financial professionals, and investors worldwide, and offers a variety of products including closed-end funds. Its Thornburg Income Builder Opportunities Trust (TBLD), allocates between global equities and fixed income to support an income stream as well as total return for investors.

Original Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2833leAfE9g&t=1242s Dr. E. Michael Jones visits the local public access channel studio in downtown South Bend to discuss with Peter Helland his understanding of the very controversial decision to continue to retain the retired Jewish lawyer of Barnes and Thornburg, Alan Feldbaum, to his high position within the St. Joseph County Public Library. Many local citizens and particularly mothers, represented by county council member, Amy Drake, want him replaced. Feldbaum has been insisting that the children section contain books like "Flamer" and "This Book is Gay." The mothers and many others feel this makes it morally unsafe for their children to be in the children's section of the library. Amy Drake thought for sure the three Republican conservative county commissioners would support her. Instead as Dr. Jones says, they stabbed her in the back. While this extremely important 10 am meeting was taking place, only two hours later at 12 o'clock the Republicans were holding a meeting at the Juday Creek golf course to listen to "conservative" radio talk show host Casey Hendrickson and common council member Eli Wax give a talk on "Understanding Israel" in light of the war in Gaza. After the hour talk Jones was given the first question. Jones said the talk was an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Hendrickson immediately started "sparring" with Jones. Finally Hendrickson said: "I know who you are. The ADL says you are an antisemite." This galvanized the crowd against Jones. But fortunately Mike came with some friends that created a buffer for him. Mike never was allowed to say his peace at the meeting but now on public access and youtube he can get his important message out: Both political parties in St. Joseph County and South Bend are controlled way too much by the Jewish citizens and outside Jewish influence he says. And this is happening all over the country. He says we must take back our country and get representatives that actually represent the majority. ——— NOW AVAILABLE! The Holocaust Narrative: https://www.fidelitypress.org/the-holocaust-narrative _______ Dr. Jones Books: fidelitypress.org/ Subscribe to Culture Wars Magazine: culturewars.com Donate: culturewars.com/donate Follow: https://culturewars.com/links

Adam Sparkman, client portfolio manager at Thornburg -- part of the team running TBLD, the Thornburg Income Builder Opportunity Trust -- says that current market conditions favor the flexibility of a multi-asset approach, noting that  "it's a different menu within fixed income entering 2024 than it was a couple of years ago." The changes in the rate environment have allowed the firm to increase credit quality. "We're taking less credit lisk and we're looking to add a bit of duration," Sparkman says. On the equity side of things, Sparkman says international investments -- especially in Europe -- are trading at relative discounts, making them particularly attractive now.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down a major voting rights decision in the Allen v. Milligan case. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and found that Alabama's 2022 congressional map likely violated Section 2. This comes as a surprising victory for voting rights and the Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) test after a series of other Supreme Court cases that have narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, including the Brnovich v. DNC case in 2021 and Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with the liberal justices. In this episode, Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel and Rick Hasen of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Allen decision; discuss why Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh voted with the liberal justices to uphold the Gingles framework; what other conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in dissent; and what this means for redistricting and voting rights in 2024 and beyond.  Resources: Allen v. Milligan (June 2023) Jason Torchinsky, Amicus Brief on Behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust Rick Hasen, “John Roberts Throws a Curveball,” NYT (June 8, 2023) Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (1965)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

It's YOUR time to #EdUp In this episode,  YOUR guests are Malika Clinkscales, Senior Associate Vice President, HBCU Center for Coaching & Excellence at InsideTrack, & Dr. Ka'rin Thornburg, Director of Partnership Engagement, Program Development & Effectiveness for the Partnership for Education Advancement YOUR host is Dr. Joe Sallustio & YOUR sponsors are Element451's ENGAGE Summit⁠ & Anthology Together 2023 What does belonging actually mean? Why is coaching pivotal for recruiting & retaining students? What is Malika & Ka'rin's big announcement? Listen in to #EdUp! Thank YOU so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for YOUR time to EdUp! Connect with YOUR EdUp Team - Elvin Freytes & Dr. Joe Sallustio ● Join YOUR EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! We make education YOUR business! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/edup/message

So let's talk about bioethical intervention... The medical community has a rich history of false information, and it even got to a point when the community itself was the perpetrator of fake news. Mis- and disinformation have become so prevalent that even in the age of the internet, it remains to be the most difficult challenge healthcare workers have to win against. But that doesn't mean that we will and shall remain silent against all the misinformation and disinformation that's been thrown our way, especially in the middle of the pandemic. That's why for this episode, I invited Evan Thornburg, a bioethicist and TikTok content creator who aims to battle public health disinformation and misinformation by educating people on issues concerning public health. Do not become a victim of these social media “experts” and their unverified and mostly untruthful claims. Join Evan and me as we talk about the importance of acknowledging and understanding the roots of both mis- and disinformation in the medical field. Gather tips on how to effectively combat fake news both as a content creator and as part of the audience. Why you need to check this episode: Discover how the internet has affected the overall situation of medical misinformation and disinformation, both positively and negatively; Find out why you should first acknowledge and validate the reasons of people who believe in conspiracy theories instead of dismissing them right away; and Learn why you should never talk to an audience in such a way that would make you sound like the smartest person in the room. “I don't want to explain ‘why this is wrong'. What I want to explain is what someone is doing. What I want to explain is the technique they're using. What I want to explain is how you can see this for yourself. Fortifying or sharpening everybody's abilities to identify the problem means that I don't have to be there every time a new concept comes out.” – Evan Thornburg Notable Quotes: “Misinformation has been a bit of a keystone in medicine when we start to look at it through the lens of the history of medicine, especially of black and brown bodies.” – Evan Thornburg “One of the things that I've learned in researching and trying to understand people's consumption of disinformation and misinformation and conspiracy theories is that they experience an intensity of fear and anxiety around health and health information. And I think it's fair to affirm that. I think the first place that a lot of folks go wrong is denying them that reality.” – Evan Thornburg “We've overbought into the marketplace of ideas. We've overdrunk that Kool-Aid too deep like the best idea will just naturally float on top. It doesn't. The most exciting idea, the most promoted idea, the most beneficial financially idea does.” – Evan Thornburg “We don't have a natural propensity towards integrity… Most people choose integrity when they think something has the integrity to it. But it's not a natural propensity for us to just know what's the thing with the most integrity.” – Evan Thornburg Sign up at www.listentodrberry.com  to join the mailing list. Remember to subscribe to the podcast and share the episode with a friend or family member. Listen on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Stitcher, Soundcloud, iHeartRadio, and Spotify Links/Resources: Evan's TikTok

Thank you for listening! Follow us on Facebook and Instagram. You may also watch this podcast on YouTube!You may also follow Sam Taggart on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok for more nuggets on D2D and Sales Tips.