Podcasts about Underground Railroad

The new musical "Mexodus" uses hip-hop to tell the true story of the Underground Railroad that ran south to Mexico instead of north to Canada. Creators and stars Brian Quijada and Nygel D. Robinson discuss the show, which runs through November 1.

This conversation delves into the dark and twisted world of the Montgomery family, exploring themes of death, betrayal, and the haunting nature of family secrets. Buford Montgomery's struggle for freedom from his controlling mother leads to a series of shocking revelations and ultimately tragic consequences.In the shadowy corridors of the Montgomery estate, a chilling plan unfolds. Buford Montgomery, a man driven by desperation and a thirst for freedom, devises a scheme to keep his mother hidden and presumed dead. This tale, set in the eerie Westerly house, is a haunting exploration of family ties, deceit, and the lengths one might go to escape the past.The Plan Unveiled: Buford's mother, presumed dead after an epileptic seizure, finds herself very much alive but trapped in a grim reality. Buford, eager to claim his inheritance and freedom, conspires to keep her hidden in the estate's secretive hidey-hole, a relic from the Underground Railroad days. This hidden chamber becomes her prison, as Buford seeks to maintain the illusion of her death to the outside world.A Family's Dark Legacy: The Montgomery family is no stranger to secrets. Buford's plan is steeped in the family's dark history, where power struggles and hidden truths have long been the norm. As Buford navigates his new life as the estate's master, he must also contend with the ghosts of his past, including a complicated relationship with his mother and the weight of familial expectations.Buford's story is a chilling reminder of the lengths one might go to sever the ties that bind. As the tale unfolds, the lines between life and death blur, leaving readers to ponder the true cost of freedom. In the end, Buford's plan is a testament to the enduring power of family secrets and the haunting legacy they leave behind.Subscribe Now: For more tales of intrigue and mystery, subscribe to our blog and never miss a story.TakeawaysThe imagination can conjure terrifying scenarios.Family dynamics can lead to dark secrets.The desire for freedom can drive people to extremes.Betrayal within a family can have dire consequences.The past can haunt individuals in unexpected ways.Deception can lead to tragic outcomes.The line between life and death can be blurred.Psychological manipulation is a powerful tool.The consequences of one's actions can be irreversible.Love can turn into obsession and control.mystery, imagination, death, life, haunting, family secrets, betrayal, suspense, drama, psychological thriller

I absolutely judge books by their covers, and as one of the top covers I've seen all year, Sowing Hope doesn't disappoint. Listen in to learn how Heather Wood weaves parts of history many don't know much about into amazing stories! note: links may be affiliate links that provide me with a small commission at no extra expense to you. I love that Heather writes about skilled Irish artisans before the potato famine.  She also shared about how she wrote to show how slavery was getting worse, how she deals with an actual martyr, and about the Underground Railroad. Sowing Hope by Heather Wood Encounter the True Story of Abolitionist Editor Elijah Lovejoy Patrick Gallagher has done all he can—and it hasn't been enough. Now in his mid-thirties, he battles discouragement over his inability to make a difference in eradicating slavery. Longing to regain the hope and passion that once fueled his calling, Patrick sets out from his home in Maryland to meet his hero, Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor in Missouri. Anna Markland actively serves her community and those traveling on the Underground Railroad. But her efforts feel small when she is constantly beset by headaches that leave her prostrate for days on end. When the enigmatic Mr. Gallagher enters her life, she discovers their hearts beat with the same dreams. Yet Anna knows that if she allowed him to pursue her, her weakness would hinder him from reaching his potential as an abolitionist leader. In the free states along his path, Patrick discovers that the Black and abolitionist communities are anything but free. Violent mobs, hateful rhetoric, and spineless politicians create a tinderbox of danger. What will he sacrifice for the cause he's devoted his life to—and will God finally use him to make the difference he longs to see in society? Don't miss the first interview with Heather HERE. Learn more about Heather on her WEBSITE and follow her on GoodReads and BookBub. Like to listen on the go? You can find Because Fiction Podcast at: Apple Castbox Google Play Libsyn RSS Spotify Amazon and more!

Harriet Tubman is an icon for freedom. She first fled slavery with two brothers on September 17, 1849. By the following year, she was returning to save others. She traveled by night, from safe house to safe house, supported by a network of abolitionists known as the Underground Railroad. Walking north to Pennsylvania—a free state. She would make 13 trips back and forth throughout the 1850s and early 1860s. She rescued roughly 70 people from enslavement. But she didn't stop there.This is episode 68 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast produced by The Real News. Each week, we'll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.BIG NEWS! This podcast is a finalist for this year's Signal Awards for best history podcast. It's a huge honor just to get this far. And you can help us win. Your vote can make a difference. Anyone can vote.Here's the link: https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2025/shows/genre/historyAll you have to do is click on the link. That will take you to a page where you can click on the Stories of Resistance icon. Register your email and you're all set. While you're there, please also vote for The Real News's Marc Steiner. He's in the running for best episode host. You can vote for him here: https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2025/individual-episodes/craft/best-hostPlease consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox's reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews. If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. And please consider signing up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.Written and produced by Michael Fox.Resources:Harriet Tubman and the battle for America's symbolsThere's resistance happening all around us, we're just not seeing itBecome a member and join the Stories of Resistance Supporters Club today!Follow Stories of Resistance on Spotify or Apple PodcastsSign up for our newsletterFollow us on:Bluesky: @therealnews.comFacebook: The Real News NetworkTwitter: @TheRealNewsYouTube: @therealnewsInstagram: @therealnewsnetwork

SEASON 2 - EPISODE 160 - Mark Friedberg - Production Designer In this extended (and funny) episode of the Team Deakins Podcast, we speak with production designer Mark Friedberg (CAUGHT STEALING, JOKER, THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD). A native New Yorker, it wasn't until returning to the city after Jack Kerouac-ing around the country that Mark (and his dog) first found work in the film industry as a driver for the Woody Allen production team. Mark was eventually let out of the van, and, throughout our conversation, he reveals how he thought through many of the challenges in his long and impressive career as a designer. Mark is also a staple in Barry Jenkins' (Season 2, Episode 156) stable of collaborators, and we learn how Mark's daughter convinced her father to break his own rules to initially meet with the director. We also discuss technology's place in Mark's design process, and he shares why he rehired the millennial gamers who built MUFASA's Africa to digitally visualize the sets of JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX before physically constructing them.  - Recommended Viewing: THE ICE STORM - This episode is sponsored by Sandstorm & Aputure

✦ Since 2010, The Goat Farm has served as home to artists of all types in Atlanta. After a brief period of renovations, it reopened in 2024 and is now bigger and better than ever. You can see it in all of its glory at this year's second annual SITE festival. Sprawling over the whole 12 acres of the Goat Farms property will be exhibitions and installations of all kinds. City Lights Collective producer Josh Thane spoke with the goat farms' design and creative director, Allie Bashuk, about the upcoming SITE festival. ✦ City Lights Collective member and award-winning Atlanta comedian Joel Byars is one of the hardest-working people in the business. He hosts many comedy events around town, and his podcast, "Hot Breath Pod," aims to uplift his fellow comedians. Byars joins us weekly to share his picks for this week's must-see Comedy, and today his mix includes an Atlanta version of "Mom's Unhinged" and two nights of Josh Johnson at the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Center. ✦ Harriet Tubman was more than just the operator of the Underground Railroad. She also led a Civil War raid that freed more than 700 enslaved people in a single day. That dramatic chapter of the war is the focus of "COMBEE," the Pulitzer Prize–winning book by historian and Emory alum Edda Fields-Black. The author is back in Atlanta on Monday, September 29, at the Georgia Center for the Book. Fields-Black recently spoke with "City Lights Collective" member Alison Law about the Pulitzer Prize and bringing COMBEE's untold stories to life. ✦ And I'm Kim Drobes. It's time now to hear from our artistic community In Their Own Words. This is where they tell us who they are, what they do, what they love, and a few things you might not see coming. What things? Who knows, there's only one way to find out. Today, we shine a light on the band Solid State Radio. ✦ In celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month, which began on September 15, The Gallery at Abernathy Arts Center presents "Caminos Compartidos." Showcasing vibrant and diverse works by artists of Latin origin, the exhibition is on view through October 30. WABE arts reporter Summer Evans spoke with the curator of the exhibit, Carol Santos.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a Grave Talks CLASSIC EPISODE! Before it became a sprawling 12,000-square-foot estate, the Cheney Mansion in Jerseyville, Illinois, began as the humble Red House in 1827. Built as the area's first frame house, it stood with just two rooms upstairs and two rooms downstairs. Yet even in its early days, the property became more than just a family home. It served as a stagecoach stop for weary travelers, a lively tavern, a doctor's office, and even a bank. Most remarkably, its cistern is believed to have hidden enslaved people seeking freedom along the Underground Railroad—adding a powerful layer of human history to its walls. Over the decades, the Red House grew into the Cheney Mansion, a place of grandeur and prominence in Jerseyville. Thanks to the tireless efforts of local volunteers, it remains in remarkable condition today. But some believe that its well-preserved beauty is only part of the story. Many say the spirits of former residents and visitors never left. Among them is P.D. Cheney himself, whose presence is often felt within the mansion's historic halls. Reports of unexplained sounds, mysterious figures, and an undeniable energy have convinced many that the mansion is still very much alive with ghostly activity. From stagecoach guests who never checked out to long-past owners still keeping watch, the Cheney Mansion is a site where history and the paranormal intertwine. This is Part Two of our conversation. Today on The Grave Talks, we sit down with Roger Scheffel to explore the incredible history and chilling hauntings of this Illinois landmark. #HauntedHouse #HauntedIllinois #TheGraveTalks #GhostStories #HauntedHistory #HauntedMansion #UndergroundRailroad #HistoricHauntings #HauntedPlaces #UnexplainedPhenomena Love real ghost stories? Don't just listen—join us on YouTube and be part of the largest community of real paranormal encounters anywhere. Subscribe now and never miss a chilling new story:

Step inside the North Star Underground Railroad Museum with President Jacqueline “Jackie” Madison of the North Country Underground Historical Association. We trace the Champlain Line of the Underground Railroad through the stories of real people and places—John Thomas's journey to freedom, the Quakers' moral stand, and local heroes like editor Wendell Lansing. Jackie walks us through can't-miss exhibits (the object-theater “John Thomas Room,” the life-size “Germinal” sculpture) and the power of docents in small, mighty Adirondack “pocket museums.” Immerse yourself in the unique experience of visiting the museum near Ausable Chasm. Discover community programs, Juneteenth tours, and easy ways to support the museum.For more information about the episode and links to the places we mention, visit adktaste.co/talks42.Love the show? Rate & review us—it helps other Adirondack lovers find us to discover more ADK insights.Subscribe and never miss our insider stories about the best people, places, and history of the Adirondacks.Share this episode with someone who loves history, travel, or the Adirondack Park. Let's build a community of Adirondack enthusiasts and spread the love for the Adirondacks together!Have a burning question about the Adirondacks? We'd love to hear it! Send your questions to info@adktaste.com or use the form available at ADKTaste.com. We might just answer it on air!ADK Talks is brought to you by ADK Taste. We provide insight on the best places to stay, shop, eat and experience in the 6-million-acre Adirondack Park in upstate New York. Visit our website, ADKtaste.com, and sign up for our weekly newsletter.

This is a Grave Talks CLASSIC EPISODE! Before it became a sprawling 12,000-square-foot estate, the Cheney Mansion in Jerseyville, Illinois, began as the humble Red House in 1827. Built as the area's first frame house, it stood with just two rooms upstairs and two rooms downstairs. Yet even in its early days, the property became more than just a family home. It served as a stagecoach stop for weary travelers, a lively tavern, a doctor's office, and even a bank. Most remarkably, its cistern is believed to have hidden enslaved people seeking freedom along the Underground Railroad—adding a powerful layer of human history to its walls. Over the decades, the Red House grew into the Cheney Mansion, a place of grandeur and prominence in Jerseyville. Thanks to the tireless efforts of local volunteers, it remains in remarkable condition today. But some believe that its well-preserved beauty is only part of the story. Many say the spirits of former residents and visitors never left. Among them is P.D. Cheney himself, whose presence is often felt within the mansion's historic halls. Reports of unexplained sounds, mysterious figures, and an undeniable energy have convinced many that the mansion is still very much alive with ghostly activity. From stagecoach guests who never checked out to long-past owners still keeping watch, the Cheney Mansion is a site where history and the paranormal intertwine. Today on The Grave Talks, we sit down with Roger Scheffel to explore the incredible history and chilling hauntings of this Illinois landmark. #HauntedHouse #HauntedIllinois #TheGraveTalks #GhostStories #HauntedHistory #HauntedMansion #UndergroundRailroad #HistoricHauntings #HauntedPlaces #UnexplainedPhenomena Love real ghost stories? Don't just listen—join us on YouTube and be part of the largest community of real paranormal encounters anywhere. Subscribe now and never miss a chilling new story:

Josh recently turned 44 and doesn't sound a day younger. Emotional and physical aches and pains aside, Josh is ready to focus on the power of the word "fuck" as well as the power of old bulldogs. Josh might also attempt to focus on the exhaustion of taking a family to a baseball game, and the ability for the brain to weaken, and the younger generation not caring about old customs, and micro dosing trauma on smartphones, and picturing the Underground Railroad. Josh also reveals a few obscure things he likes. Josh also types these descriptions that most people don't read but one day a real professional producer might do that but would Josh have to spend a lot of time with that producer? Then, it's a no-go, dealbreaker, Josh'll keep doing the one man band. Logo art by Brandon Fart Face Lai Music by Micah Fart Face Julius Fart Face nicknames by refusing to act 44

This Day in Legal History: Fugitive Slave ActOn September 18, 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law, intensifying the national divide over slavery. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the law mandated that all escaped enslaved individuals, upon capture, be returned to their enslavers and that officials and citizens of free states were legally obligated to cooperate. Federal commissioners were authorized to issue arrest warrants without a jury trial, and those accused had no right to testify in their own defense.The law also imposed heavy penalties on anyone aiding a fugitive, including fines and imprisonment, which provoked outrage among abolitionists and free Black communities. The act effectively nationalized the institution of slavery, forcing even anti-slavery states to participate in its enforcement. This led to dramatic and sometimes violent resistance, including the formation of vigilance committees and the expansion of the Underground Railroad.Free Black Americans faced new dangers under the law, as it encouraged bounty hunters and unscrupulous officials to seize and enslave them under false pretenses. Several high-profile cases, such as the capture of Anthony Burns in Boston in 1854, drew mass protests and highlighted the law's harsh impact. The Fugitive Slave Act deepened sectional tensions and hardened Northern opposition to slavery, pushing the nation closer to civil war.A Chapter 7 trustee for the bankrupt fintech startup GloriFi has filed a $1.7 billion malpractice lawsuit against law firm Winston & Strawn and its Houston managing partner, Michael Blankenship. The suit alleges the firm prioritized the interests of GloriFi's founder, Texas oil investor Toby Neugebauer, over the company's, ultimately contributing to its collapse. GloriFi—formally known as With Purpose Inc.—marketed itself as an “anti-woke” financial institution aimed at conservative consumers. The complaint claims Winston & Strawn enabled Neugebauer to engage in self-dealing, manipulate board control, and undermine corporate governance, deterring major investors and derailing a proposed SPAC merger that once valued the company at $1.7 billion.The trustee accuses the firm of negligence, fiduciary breaches, and aiding fraudulent transfers, alleging its conduct drove investor confidence down and played a key role in the company's failure. Winston & Strawn denies wrongdoing and promises to contest the "meritless claims." The legal action follows a court-approved settlement earlier this year that allowed GloriFi's trustee to pursue claims via a separate entity tied to one of the investors. This is one of multiple legal efforts by the trustee, who previously sued Chapman & Cutler LLP over similar allegations related to Neugebauer's control of the company. High-profile backers of GloriFi included Peter Thiel, Ken Griffin, Vivek Ramaswamy, and an aide to former Vice President Mike Pence.Winston & Strawn Sued in ‘Anti-Woke' Bank Startup Bankruptcy (1)A U.S. immigration judge ordered the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American activist and Columbia University student, to either Algeria or Syria. The ruling is based on allegations that Khalil intentionally misrepresented facts on his green card application. Khalil's legal team disputes the decision and plans to appeal, citing a separate federal court order that currently prevents his detention or deportation while his civil rights case proceeds.Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, was previously held for over 100 days by immigration authorities and missed the birth of his child while in custody. He was released in June after a federal judge criticized his prolonged detention over a civil immigration issue as unconstitutional. Khalil claims the government's efforts to remove him are retaliatory, tied to his outspoken pro-Palestinian activism and free speech. He argues that the charges against him are fabricated and politically motivated.The case has drawn criticism from civil rights organizations concerned about the erosion of due process and free speech rights, especially in the context of recent federal pressure on universities to curtail pro-Palestinian protests. Columbia University, where Khalil studies, was a focal point of such demonstrations in the previous year.US immigration judge orders Khalil deportation, his lawyers say separate ruling protects him for now | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Amazon violated consumer protection laws by collecting billing information for its Prime subscription service before clearly disclosing the full terms, giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a partial win in its case against the company. The FTC alleges Amazon used deceptive practices to enroll tens of millions of users in Prime without proper consent and made cancellations deliberately difficult. The judge found that these actions potentially violated the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA), and that Amazon cannot argue ROSCA doesn't apply to Prime signups.U.S. District Judge John Chun also held that two Amazon executives could be held personally liable if violations are proven at trial. The FTC's consumer protection chief, Chris Mufarrige, said the ruling confirms Amazon misled consumers. Amazon maintains that neither the company nor the executives acted improperly, and claims it has always prioritized customer experience. The outcome of the upcoming trial could significantly affect how subscription services manage disclosures and cancellations going forward.Amazon violated online shopper protection law, judge rules ahead of Prime signup trial | ReutersA federal appeals court has blocked, for now, the Trump administration's sweeping plan to overhaul the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The proposed reorganization, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., included cutting 10,000 jobs, shutting half of HHS's regional offices, and consolidating key functions across agencies like the CDC and FDA. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's injunction, siding with 19 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that argued the plan would cause immediate harm.The appellate panel, composed entirely of Biden-appointed judges, found the administration failed to demonstrate why the injunction should be lifted while the case is under appeal. The court cited extensive evidence from state officials showing how the restructuring already disrupted public health services, including disease tracking and early childhood programs like Head Start. In July, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose ruled the administration lacked the authority to unilaterally restructure agencies created by Congress and ordered a halt to the planned cuts at four major agencies.The administration argued the suit was speculative and claimed employee firings should be handled through internal federal channels. However, the court rejected that reasoning, emphasizing that the states have a direct and tangible interest due to their reliance on federal services. The case remains ongoing, with significant implications for executive authority over federal agencies.Trump administration cannot proceed with overhaul of US health agencies, court rules | ReutersMorgan & Morgan, a major U.S. personal injury law firm, has filed a lawsuit against Disney in federal court in Orlando, seeking a ruling that it can use a parody-style ad referencing Steamboat Willie without infringing Disney's intellectual property rights. Although Disney's copyright on the 1928 short film—which introduced Mickey and Minnie Mouse—expired last year, the company still holds related trademarks. The lawsuit comes after Disney declined to confirm whether it would object to the ad when contacted by the firm.The disputed ad, styled in the animation style of Steamboat Willie, shows Minnie Mouse calling Morgan & Morgan after Mickey crashes a boat into her car. The ad contains a disclaimer distancing it from Disney. Citing Disney's aggressive enforcement history—such as a recent trademark suit over Steamboat Willie jewelry—the firm is asking the court to preemptively declare that its ad does not violate Disney's IP and to block any potential lawsuit from the company.Morgan & Morgan argues that the uncertainty created by Disney's refusal to clarify its position prompted the need for legal action. The firm is known for its extensive advertising efforts, having spent over $218 million on legal services ads in the previous year.Disney sued by law firm Morgan & Morgan over 'Steamboat Willie' ad | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Greg and Dan talk with Jenni Davis from the Peoria Public Library about all the exciting things happening this fall! The library offers access to a huge collection of classic films, giving people the chance to relive favorites from their childhood or discover the legends of Hollywood’s past. Jenni also highlights a special documentary screening, The Underground Railroad in Metamora, happening September 20th at 2:00 PM. The film dives into the controversy surrounding the Underground Railroad in Metamora, including the risks, betrayals, and bravery of those involved. They also discuss the upcoming Peoria Reads!, the library’s annual community-wide reading program that brings people together to explore one impactful book through discussions, activities, and events. Plus, October is packed with fun fall programs, author visits, and family-friendly events at the library. Find full details at www.peoriapubliclibrary.orgSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to Scott Bishop's new series, Brought to the Light. Scott's guest on this first of ten podcasts is Lee Blake. She has over 30 years of experience as a teacher and administrator in urban education and historic preservation. Lee has taught African American and Women's Studies at the high school and university level in New Bedford and in New York City. She served as the director of Education for the City of New York for 8 years. Lee Blake has been awarded five National Endowment for the Humanities awards to provide professional development to teachers across the country on African American history. Her program, Sailing to Freedom: New Bedford and the Underground Railroad, is breaking new ground as it highlights the sea and whaling as an escape route for African American freedom seekers. Currently, Lee serves as president and chief development officer for the New Bedford Historical Society. During her 15 years as a volunteer at the Society, Lee has successfully raised funds for after-school programming, building preservation and restoration projects, as well as funds for art Although Lee Blake says, "I am not an artist, but I work with artists to fund public art pieces and spaces that have changed the narrative of the City of New Bedford." New Bedford Historical Society has been responsible for the vast majority of public art in New Bedford that focuses on Black history and the Black experience. "The Society has been responsible for illustrating the history of our people through several projects: Lewis Temple Monument, Abolition Row Park, the Frederick Douglass statue, 54th Massachusetts Mural and 54th Massachusetts Regiment Park, the Jazz Mural, and other projects. Lee spoke with The Artists Index Scott Bishop on his new series, Brought to the Light. They discussed her love of history, African American culture, New Bedford, and more.   Lee Blake New Bedford Historical Society 21 Seventh Street New Bedford, MA 02740 508-979-8828   Email | Website | Facebook | Instagram | Linktree | Other   ALSO AVAILABLE ON: YouTube Please consider donating whatever you can to ensure that our mission continues as we document the legacies of South Coast Artists. If you would like to be a guest on The Artists Index or have a suggestion, please let us know!   This podcast is funded in part with a grant from the New Bedford Cultural Council, a local agency supported by the Mass Cultural Council, a state agency

They live above the dead. And the dead still walk below. In this unforgettable episode of Real Ghost Stories Online, host Carol Hughes takes us deep into a paranormal hotspot unlike any other—a former funeral home built in the 1880s. Now converted into apartments and businesses, this building has a long, buried history that still echoes through its walls… and tunnels. Yes—tunnels. Because underneath this Midwestern town runs an underground network once used by the Underground Railroad, Al Capone, and God knows what else. The basement remains untouched, cobblestone-lined, with an original casket elevator and the scent of hay still embedded in its walls from its days housing horses for funeral processions. Carol's nephew Giovanni lives in the upstairs apartment. His roommate? A shadowy female presence he's named Chelsea. From the moment he moved in, strange things began: doors stuck shut, ceiling fan chains swinging violently with no wind, and a full-bodied apparition of a woman with a large bun walking across the kitchen. Downstairs, staff experience memory lapses in the backroom—a “portal spot” where people forget why they entered the room mid-step. Objects crash with no cause. And the basement? Everyone avoids it. After a window mysteriously slammed on someone's hand, the room has been considered off-limits. With residual grief, intelligent spirits, and a connection to both historical trauma and organized crime, this building is a perfect storm of paranormal activity. #RealGhostStories #HauntedFuneralHome #GhostRoommate #ParanormalApartment #CasketElevator #HauntedBasement #SpiritOfChelsea #GhostEncounters #UndergroundTunnels #RealHaunting #HauntedBuilding #ParanormalPodcast Love real ghost stories? Don't just listen—join us on YouTube and be part of the largest community of real paranormal encounters anywhere. Subscribe now and never miss a chilling new story:

He swam as hard as he could, his enslaver chasing him in a boat. “I've got him now,” the oppressor thought. Then his target vanished into thin air. “Where the hell did he go?”_____________ 2-Minute Black History is produced by PushBlack, the nation's largest non-profit Black media company. PushBlack exists to amplify the stories of Black history you didn't learn in school. You make PushBlack happen with your contributions at BlackHistoryYear.com — most people donate $10 a month, but every dollar makes a difference. If this episode moved you, share it with your people! Thanks for supporting the work. The production team for this podcast includes Cydney Smith and Len Webb. Our editors are Lance John and Avery Phillips from Gifted Sounds Network. Lilly Workneh serves as executive producer. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Hubbard House in northeast Ohio's Ashtabula County was an important stop on the Underground Railroad. After surviving a demolition threat, it has a unique strategy to ensure its future.

Don’t miss an incredible opportunity this Thursday morning! Join us as the esteemed Medical Doctor and Scientist Professor Velva Boles takes us on a journey through her recent experiences in Burkina Faso and Ghana. Before her presentation, we will welcome Dr. Cheryl LaRoche, a distinguished archaeologist and educator, who will reveal fascinating insights about the Underground Railroad, including the remarkable yet lesser-known heroes who helped make this vital escape route a success. Adding to the conversation, activist Kwabena Rasuli will connect the dots between the influence of negative music lyrics and crime in our communities, sparking important discussions we all need to engage in. Tune in at 6 AM ET, 5 AM CT, 3 AM PT, and 11 AM BST on WOLB 1010 AM and online at wolbbaltimore.com, along with WOL 95.9 FM and 1450 AM, plus woldcnews.com. You can participate by calling 800-450-7876 and listen live on TuneIn Radio and Alexa. In the DMV area, catch us on 104.1 HD2 FM, 93.9 HD2 FM, and 102.3 HD2 FM. This is not just a broadcast; it’s a chance to be part of an engaging and thought-provoking discourse that addresses the issues impacting our communities. Join us this Thursday morning to lend your voice and broaden your understanding. All programs are easily accessible for free on your favorite podcast platforms. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram, and let’s bring our Black Ideas to life together on the radio!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is so much going on in this episode, I almost don't know where to begin.  In his corner, Arthur discusses his new school year, art and Undertales.  Then we settle in to learn about Matilda Joslyn Gage.  Raised in a home that was a stop for the Underground Railroad, she learned lessons early about equality and doing the right thing and translated those messages into a voice for the right of women to vote, to invent, to live on their own terms and not just women.  She beilieved in the sovereignty of indiginous people and the abolishment of slavery.  We need a little of her spirit even now.  We also talk about how she affected Frank L. Baum her son-in-law and how she became the pattern for Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz.  All this and sooooo much more in our latest episode of the Family Plot Podcast!!We also reference:  Clara Barton from Episode 260The Salem Witch Trials from Episode 80 and 81.And Sharon Kinne from Episode 251.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/family-plot--4670465/support.

Illinois Farm Bureau Assistant Director of State Legislation Anna McKinley discusses deer nuisance legislation that has been signed into law in Illinois.  Celebrating WSMI's 75th anniversary. Jack Weddle with the Metamora Association For Historic Preservation discusses the town's connection to the Underground Railroad. 

On this day in 1766, James Forten was born in Philadelphia. A free Black man, Forten became a successful sailmaker and inventor, developing an improved sail design that earned him respect in a trade dominated by white craftsmen. He used his wealth and influence to support abolitionist causes, fund antislavery publications, and aid the Underground Railroad. Forten believed in education and opportunity for Black Americans and became a leading voice against colonization schemes. He passed away on March 4, 1842, leaving a legacy of resistance, innovation and justice. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

First, Ben and Celestia discuss the needle-spiking panic fallout, missing kids in Virginia, screw worms, radioactive shrimp and seeing double in Las Vegas. Then our main segment is secret signs and signals! Real or legendary, these signs and markers are throughout human history to tell "those in the know" what to expect (food, sex, danger). From secret codes sewn into quilts to help the Underground Railroad effort to rock cairns and inukshuks, there are many tales of people making an effort to show others a safe path. We also look at the ancient bro code known as Masonic symbols, which manly men have been putting on their erections for generations. And of course we must touch on the world of swinger symbols, where anything from pineapples to a toe ring might be sending signals -- or just giving people a laugh.

SEASON 2 - EPISODE 156 - Barry Jenkins - Director In this episode of the Team Deakins Podcast, we speak with director Barry Jenkins (MUFASA: THE LION KING, THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD, MOONLIGHT). How did Barry get from South Florida to Hollywood? What did he learn about himself on his walkabout around the country after leaving the industry? What did Barry struggle with in the gap between the release of his debut feature and MOONLIGHT? How did he survive the gonzo shooting schedule of THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD? Why MUFASA? Barry answers all these questions and speaks on craft, process, and so much more in this extended and enriching conversation about his life, his films, and the many years he spent not actually making anything. Barry and his film school friends Adele Romanski and Mark Ceryak also produce movies through their production company PASTEL, and we discuss why he feels it's important to help introduce new filmmakers and new voices—particularly now. Plus, Barry reveals the premise of his unrealized Stevie Wonder time-travel script.  - Recommended Viewing: THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD, MOONLIGHT, MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY - This episode is sponsored by Barco & Aputure

With previous work hailed by the New York Times as “unflinching” and “piercing,” Ashley M. Jones's Lullaby for the Grieving (Hub City Press, 2025) is her most personal collection to date. In it, Jones studies the multifaceted nature of grief: the personal grief of losing her father, and the political grief tied to Black Southern identity. How does one find a path through the deep sorrow of losing a parent? What wonders of Blackness must be suppressed to make way for “progress?” Journeying through landscapes of Alabama, the Middle Passage and Underground Railroad, interior spaces of loss and love, and her father's garden, Jones constructs both an elegy for her father and a celebration of the sacred exuberance and audacity of life. Featuring poems from her tenure as Alabama's first Black and youngest Poet Laureate, Lullaby for the Grieving finds calm in unimaginable storms and attempts to listen for the sounds of healing. Ashley M. Jones is the Poet Laureate of Alabama (2022-2026). She is the first person of color and youngest person in Alabama's history to hold this position, which was created in 1930. You can find her online at Ashley M. Jones Poetry. You can find host, Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack, where she and Ashley discuss Ashley's tenure as Poet Laureate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

With previous work hailed by the New York Times as “unflinching” and “piercing,” Ashley M. Jones's Lullaby for the Grieving (Hub City Press, 2025) is her most personal collection to date. In it, Jones studies the multifaceted nature of grief: the personal grief of losing her father, and the political grief tied to Black Southern identity. How does one find a path through the deep sorrow of losing a parent? What wonders of Blackness must be suppressed to make way for “progress?” Journeying through landscapes of Alabama, the Middle Passage and Underground Railroad, interior spaces of loss and love, and her father's garden, Jones constructs both an elegy for her father and a celebration of the sacred exuberance and audacity of life. Featuring poems from her tenure as Alabama's first Black and youngest Poet Laureate, Lullaby for the Grieving finds calm in unimaginable storms and attempts to listen for the sounds of healing. Ashley M. Jones is the Poet Laureate of Alabama (2022-2026). She is the first person of color and youngest person in Alabama's history to hold this position, which was created in 1930. You can find her online at Ashley M. Jones Poetry. You can find host, Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack, where she and Ashley discuss Ashley's tenure as Poet Laureate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/poetry

In Tandem, the joint exhibition between printmaker extraordinaire Chloe Alexander and your boy, JBarber, recently ended its run at the Emma Darnell Aviation Center in Atlanta, GA. If you made it thank you we definitely appreciate your support. If you didn't get to see the show now worries! We recorded the artist talk live and your can still here the insights of this incredible show. Moderated by Studio Noize fam Natassha Chambliss, Chloe and Jamaal take about the big themes of the show, relationships, grief and memory. They also talk about the exploration of color, pushing the printmaking medium to new limits, the approach to curating and much more. Its that good art talk (literally!) that you love right here on the Noize! Listen, subscribe, and share!Episode 205 topics include:In Tandem artist talk recorded live at the Emma Darnell Aviation Centerweaving narratives togetherexploring printmaking as a mediumresponding to the moment pushing each other to be greatcurating Bonds of Kinship exhibitionhow to Jamaal and Chloe picked the colors for the showchildhood memories Chloe Alexander Bio:Chloe Alexander is a printmaker who lives and works in Atlanta, Georgia. Her most recent work focuses on using various printing techniques to create unique works and varied editions. She obtained a BFA from the Ernest G. Welch School of Art & Design at Georgia State University in 2010. Since then, her work has been exhibited broadly, including at Kai Lin Art in Atlanta, the International Print Center in New York, and the Woolwich Contemporary Print Fair in London. Chloe has received several awards, including the Parent Artist Award at Kala Art Institute in Berkeley, California and the Penland Summer Residency Fellowship at Penland School of Craft in North Carolina. Her work is included in numerous public and private collections, including the Harvard Museums in Cambridge, MA; The Museum of Fine Art in Boston, MA; The Fidelity Investments Art Collection; and The Petrucci Family Foundation for African American Art in Asbury, NJ.Jamaal Barber bio:Jamaal Barber is a creative, imaginative soul born in Virginia and raised in North Carolina. In 2013, after seeing a screen printing demo at a local art store, Jamaal started experimenting with printmaking, making it his primary focus. His woodcuts and mixed-media prints illustrate the new Folio Society special edition of The Underground Railroad written by Colson Whitehead. Jamaal recently participated in the MTV/Smithsonian Channel art competition show The Exhibit. He has also worked for Twitter, the New York Times, Penguin Random House, Black Art in America, and Emory University. See more: Chloe Alexanders' website + Chloe Alexander's IG @cbrooksart + Jamaal Barber's website + Jamaal Barber's IGFollow us:StudioNoizePodcast.comIG: @studionoizepodcastJamaal Barber: @JBarberStudioSupport the podcast www.patreon.com/studionoizepodcast

Support the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US

It wasn't underground, and it wasn't a railroad, so how did one of the most notable movements for freedom in American history end up with that name?

You'll be hard pressed to find a man who stood for his convictions more firmly than John Brown. John was an white abolitionist willing to do more to end slavery than any other man - of any color - in America in the 1850s. It wasn't enough for John to speak out against slavery, or to help freed slaves find freedom through the Underground Railroad. John felt that if slaveowners weren't willing to immediately free their slaves and renounce their ways, they deserved death. And he felt called by God to send them directly to their graves. For Merch and everything else Bad Magic related, head to: https://www.badmagicproductions.com

Todd DeDecker with the Bishop Hill Heritage Association joined Wake Up Tri-Counties to reveal the festivities scheduled for the 2025 Bishop Hill Chautauqua Celebration on Saturday, August 9th, beginning at 9 AM. The Bishop Hill Chautauqua will spotlight Henry County's 200th anniversary on Saturday at the Bishop Hill Town Square. The celebration unites local groups, highlighting the richness of regional heritage through reenactments and live storytelling. Attendees can meet local legends brought to life, from Native American figures to Underground Railroad heroes and early settlers. Storyteller Brian “Fox” Ellis leads the morning walking tour, followed by Jimmy Lakota Edwards' music and tales. The event wraps up with Fika—an afternoon of cookies, coffee, and conversations. Admission is free, inviting the entire community to celebrate Henry County's storied past.  The festivities kick off at 9 AM with a walking tour led by storyteller Brian “Fox” Ellis, who will guide guests through the town's origins and its place in Henry County's story. At 10:30, Jimmy Lakota Edwards shares tales and music reflecting the region's Native American past. The afternoon lineup includes Ellis channeling early Illinois entomologist Benjamin Dann Walsh, followed by historical portrayals from Angie Snook and singer-songwriter Barry Cloyd as Carl Sandburg. The day concludes with Fika—cookies, coffee, and lively conversation with the cast. Local organizations sponsor the event and welcome the public to enjoy Bishop Hill's museums, shops, and restaurants.

In this episode of Sound of the State, State Senator Dave Koehler discusses the Freedom Trails Commission — a statewide effort to map and connect Underground Railroad sites throughout Illinois. Building on the work of the Underground Railroad Task Force, the commission will help communities share their unique histories and preserve the legacy of freedom seekers. From local efforts in Peoria to broader stories across the state, hear how Illinois aims to honor this critical chapter of American history while remaining a beacon of hope today.

With roots in 18th-century revivalism and a legacy of social action, the Wesleyan Church continues to model how deep theology fuels everyday ministry.This is a milestone 250th episode! We wrap up the history of the Wesleyan Church. We discuss how a revival in the 1700s gave birth to a denomination known for social reform, global expansion, and a theology that empowers both clergy and laity. They explore what makes the Wesleyan Church distinct, how it's structured, and what you might experience if you walked into a Wesleyan church today.

For more than two decades, Living the Experience has invited audiences to take a powerful walk through history—right into the heart of Lancaster’s role in the Underground Railroad. What started as a church initiative has grown into an immersive reenactment that’s now drawing new attention under the direction of Ondra Haywood.Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Need advice? Trouble with girls? Strange questions about your addictions? Anonymously send questions for us to answer on the next episode by clicking this link! Support the showFollow our Instagram: @swallowdaddysSubscribe to Youtube: @swallowdaddysFollow RJ: rj_sainsFollow Drew: drewbockkindof (deleted instagram due to gross incompetence)Join Patreon for Early Access and Bonus Content: Help Us

a few idiots talk about anything that crosses their minds. all takes satirical, probably.     Treasure it all because none of it lasts.   leave a review. for the streets. for the culture. take care of yourself. see you at the giant. inquiries nocompassmail@gmail.com

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

Tonight on GhostBox Radio with Greg Bakun, Greg talks with Author Jane Ammeson about her book, “Hauntings of the Underground Railroad: Ghosts of the Midwest” Before the Civil War, a network of secret routes and safe houses crisscrossed the Midwest to help African Americans travel north to escape slavery. Although many slaves were able to…

In this episode we are joined by Kelsey Black, of the Book Burrow Bookstore in Pflugerville Texas as we discuss the history of Bookstores as Resistance Centers.  We discuss David Ruggles and the first Black-owned bookstore in the United States and how he was a figurative and literal stop on the Underground Railroad, selling books about feminism and the abolitionist movement.  We talk the FBI's illegal COINTELPRO and how they went after book stores like Hakim's and The Drum and Spear Bookstore.  We discuss the Gotham Book Mart, the 8th Street Bookstore and Peace Eye Books in New York City and so much more, even digging into how booksellers have sneaked secret information to their customers in this fully amazing episode of the Family Plot PodcastBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/family-plot--4670465/support.

Feelings of gratitude, achievement, and motivation at the Freedom Center, sharing that it has a powerful energy for personal development. This feeling gives a sense of empowerment and excitement to help make a call to action and change makers. This place is a gateway to a new life.THE NEW UNDERGROUND RAILROAD | Wallstreet Trapper

Welcome to the Visual Intonation Podcast, where storytelling meets the art of visual expression. In this episode, we sit down with the talented filmmaker Fisayo Olajide, also known as Fiz, whose award-winning documentaries capture the profound impact of human stories. From her roots in London to her Nigerian heritage, Fiz's perspective as a Black female filmmaker has shaped her career and led her to amplify voices often overlooked. Her work continues to break boundaries, whether through branded films for global companies like Google and Burberry, or through the powerful lens of her documentary work, which has earned her accolades at prestigious film festivals like SXSW and the New York Film Festival.Fiz's latest project is an ambitious and heartfelt endeavor—Underground Railroad Ride, a feature-length documentary that follows five young Black and brown cyclists on a powerful journey, attempting to ride a route inspired by the Underground Railroad. This raw, intimate film explores not just the history of the Underground Railroad, but the strength, solidarity, and resilience of a new generation of storytellers. It's a project deeply personal to Fiz, reflecting her drive to connect people through stories that transcend cultural boundaries.Throughout her career, Fiz has become known for her passionate and empathetic approach to filmmaking. Her work blends documentary filmmaking with immersive storytelling, creating experiences that resonate deeply with audiences. With a unique blend of curiosity and compassion, she delves into topics that connect individuals to the heart of the human experience, showing that storytelling isn't just about capturing moments—it's about elevating voices and fostering connection in a fragmented world.In this episode, Fiz opens up about her journey, her challenges, and the lessons she's learned along the way. She discusses her work mentoring the next generation of filmmakers, sharing how important it is to invest in oneself and to embrace vulnerability in the creative process. Tune in for an inspiring conversation about passion, resilience, and the power of storytelling in creating lasting change. Fisayo Olajide's Website: https://www.fizolajide.com/ Fisayo Olajide's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fizzleandgems/Support the showVisual Intonation Website: https://www.visualintonations.com/Visual Intonation Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/visualintonation/Vante Gregory's Website: vantegregory.comVante Gregory's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/directedbyvante/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): patreon.com/visualintonations Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@visualintonation Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@directedbyvante

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Stacey Allen. The founder and artistic director of Nia’s Daughters Movement Collective. This episode blends art, activism, education, and cultural preservation through the lens of Black history and dance. Here are the key highlights:

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Stacey Allen. The founder and artistic director of Nia’s Daughters Movement Collective. This episode blends art, activism, education, and cultural preservation through the lens of Black history and dance. Here are the key highlights:

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Stacey Allen. The founder and artistic director of Nia’s Daughters Movement Collective. This episode blends art, activism, education, and cultural preservation through the lens of Black history and dance. Here are the key highlights:

In this, our 34th episode of the Great American Novel podcast, the hosts tackle Colson Whitehead's intriguing, interesting, and in some surprising ways challenging award-winning 2016 novel, The Underground Railroad.  This novel works with the premise that the antebellum freedom trail to the north for escaped slaves was not a series of safe houses and hiding spaces with the occasional guide, but instead an actual underground railway. How can something be in some plays completely and purposefully historically inaccurate yet also completely true at the same time?  How does our knowledge of real life slavery chronicles by Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs complement and contradict the narrative here?  Why does Whitehead choose this meta-historical method rather than a straightforward narrative?   The Great American Novel podcast is an ongoing discussion about the novels we hold up as significant achievements in our American literary culture.  Additionally, we sometimes suggest novels who should break into the sometimes problematical canon and at other times we'll suggest books which can be dropped from such lofty consideration.  Your hosts are Kirk Curnutt and Scott Yarbrough, professors with little time and less sense who nonetheless enjoy a good book banter.  All opinions are their own and do not reflect the points of view of their employers, publishers, relatives, pets, or accountants. As always...there be spoilers here!All show music is by Lobo Loco.  The intro song is “Old Ralley,” and the outro is “Inspector Invisible.”  For more information visit: https://locolobomusic.com/.  The trailer clip is from the streaming 10 episode mini-series film adaptation, The Underground Railroad, dir. Barry Jenkins for Amazon Prime Video, 2021.We may be contacted at greatamericannovelpodcast (@) gmail.com. 

Historians discuss Iowa's significance as a part of the Underground Railroad.

To the North lay freedom, or so many believed. Starvation, exposure to the elements, and especially the threat of recapture still hung heavy over the heads of those who had escaped bondage. But what about escaping even further south? _____________ 2-Minute Black History is produced by PushBlack, the nation's largest non-profit Black media company. PushBlack exists to amplify the stories of Black history you didn't learn in school. You make PushBlack happen with your contributions at BlackHistoryYear.com — most people donate $10 a month, but every dollar makes a difference. If this episode moved you, share it with your people! Thanks for supporting the work.The production team for this podcast includes Cydney Smith, Len Webb, and Lilly Workneh. Our editors are Lance John and Avery Phillips from Gifted Sounds Network. Julian Walker serves as executive producer." To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As many as 100,000 enslaved people fled successfully from the horrors of bondage in the antebellum South, finding safe harbor along a network of passageways across North America via the Underground Railroad. Yet many escapes took place not by land but by sea. William Grimes escaped slavery in 1815 by stowing away in a cotton bale on a ship from Savannah to New York, enduring days without food or water before settling in Connecticut. Frederick Douglass disguised himself as a free black sailor, using borrowed papers to board a train and then a steamboat from Baltimore to New York, reaching freedom in less than 24 hours. Thomas Jones, a formerly enslaved man from North Carolina, escaped in 1849 by hiding on a ship bound for New York, relying on his maritime knowledge as a steward to evade detection and later reuniting with his family in the North.This was a secret world of stowaways and the vessels that carried them to freedom across the North and into Canada. It sprawled through the intricate riverways of the Carolinas to the banks of the Chesapeake Bay to Boston’s harbors. Today’s guest is Marcus Rediker, author of “Freedom Ship: The Uncharted History of Escaping Slavery by Sea.” We see the Atlantic waterfront as a place of conspiracy, mutiny, and liberation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Trinway, Ohio, sits the stately Prospect Place Estate—a 29-room mansion built in 1856 by abolitionist George Willison Adams. While originally constructed as a symbol of freedom and progress, today Prospect Place stands as one of Ohio's most haunted locations. Amy Green of the G.W. Adams Educational Center shares the fascinating—and chilling—history of the estate, from its role in the Underground Railroad to the whispers of lingering spirits. Visitors report everything from shadow figures, disembodied voices, and ghostly laughter, to the lingering scent of cigar smoke from the parlor where George Adams himself is still said to roam. Could the ghost of a bounty hunter still haunt the barn? And who is the little girl seen wandering the servants' quarters? Whether you come for the history or the haunts, one thing's for certain: Prospect Place leaves a lasting impression on the living and the dead. This is Part Two of our conversation. For more information, visit their website at gwacenter.org. Become a Premium Supporter of The Grave Talks Through Apple Podcasts or Patreon (http://www.patreon.com/thegravetalks) There, you will get: Access to every episode of our show, AD-FREE! Access to every episode of our show before everyone else! Other EXCLUSIVE supporter perks and more!

In Trinway, Ohio, sits the stately Prospect Place Estate—a 29-room mansion built in 1856 by abolitionist George Willison Adams. While originally constructed as a symbol of freedom and progress, today Prospect Place stands as one of Ohio's most haunted locations. Amy Green of the G.W. Adams Educational Center shares the fascinating—and chilling—history of the estate, from its role in the Underground Railroad to the whispers of lingering spirits. Visitors report everything from shadow figures, disembodied voices, and ghostly laughter, to the lingering scent of cigar smoke from the parlor where George Adams himself is still said to roam. Could the ghost of a bounty hunter still haunt the barn? And who is the little girl seen wandering the servants' quarters? Whether you come for the history or the haunts, one thing's for certain: Prospect Place leaves a lasting impression—on the living and the dead. For more information, visit their website at gwacenter.org. Become a Premium Supporter of The Grave Talks Through Apple Podcasts or Patreon (http://www.patreon.com/thegravetalks) There, you will get: Access to every episode of our show, AD-FREE! Access to every episode of our show before everyone else! Other EXCLUSIVE supporter perks and more!

Blind Mike and Steve from Glosta in-studio. The tryout list has grown for the KMS Basketball team (00:05:00). Kirk talks to Mike Lombardi about the Belichick situation (00:11:05). Dave was the first on the Elway situation, with media announcing the friend passed away (00:15:20). Kelly Keegs joins the show to give her take on the Belicheck (00:22:00). Justin reveals on a school field trip he reenacted being a slave on the Underground Railroad (00:39:00). Alex Reimer joins the show to give his take on Jerry Thornton (00:53:00). Steve brings in an activity about Tom Hanks movie being played at the retirement home (01:05:45). Dave wants to know how to make his kid give more effort to sports (01:15:20). Mary offered to go with Justin to Cinema's wake (01:22:00).You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/kminshow

Thursday, April 10th, 2025Today, in a move that only everyone could have predicted; Trump has paused the tariffs for 90 days but says he's raising tariffs on China to 125%; judges in New York and Texas issue temporary restraining orders in the Alien Enemies Act cases; a federal judge gave the Trump administration until Wednesday night to show any proof to justify the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil; the Supreme Court has stayed a lower court's order and have effectively re-re-fired Gwynn Wilcox and Cathy Harris; an ex-Facebook employee is set to tell Congress that Zuckerberg compromised National Security; the National Park Service has restored the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman web pages; the acting IRS Commissioner has resigned after a data sharing deal with immigration authorities; Abrego Garcia's lawyers file a surreply with the Supreme Court emphasizing how wild it is that the DOJ is disavowing its own lawyers; an appeals court has cleared the way for Trump to fire probationary employees; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, IQBAR20% off all IQBAR products. Text dailybeans to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. Guest: Paula PoundstoneNobody Listens to Paula Poundstone - PodcastTour • Paula PoundstonePaula Poundstone.comStories:WATCH: Trump ‘simply floated' idea of deporting U.S. citizens, White House's Leavitt says | PBS NewsMelanie Krause: Acting IRS commissioner resigning after agency reaches data-sharing deal with immigration authorities | CNN PoliticsAppeals court clears way for Trump to restart mass firings of probationary workers | POLITICORESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY - PDF | Supreme CourtJudge gives Trump administration deadline to justify Mahmoud Khalil's deportation | The GuardianEx-Facebook employee to tell Congress the company undermined U.S. national security | NBC NewsUnderground Railroad and Harriet Tubman webpage restored by National Park Service | The Washington PostGood Trouble:Today, you can sign a petition to save the NEH - national endowment for the humanities. Millions of dollars in previously awarded federal grants intended for arts and cultural groups across the country are being canceled by the Trump administration. To sign the petition, text SIGN PRFKKF to 50409Find Upcoming Actions - 50501 MovementFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWroteDana GoldbergBlueSky|@dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, Twitter|@DGComedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsFederal TRIO ProgramsThe Complicit Corruption of the Conservative Supreme Court with Allison GillGo See Dana! - Appearances -Dana GoldbergReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts