Podcasts about Yale Law Journal

Hello Interactors,I was in Santa Barbara recently having dinner on a friend's deck when a rocket's contrail streaked the sky. “Another one from Vandenberg,” he said. “Wait a couple minutes — you'll hear it.” And we did. “They've gotten really annoying,” he added. He's not wrong. In early 2024, SpaceX launched seven times more tonnage into space than the rest of the world combined, much of it from Vandenberg Space Force Base (renamed from Air Force Base in 2021). They've already been approved to fly 12,000 Starlink satellites, with filings for 30,000 more.This isn't just future space junk — it's infrastructure. And it's not just in orbit. What Musk is doing in the sky is tied to what he's building on the ground. Not in Vandenberg, where regulation still exists, but in Starbase, Texas, where the law doesn't resist — it assists. There, Musk is testing how much sovereignty one man can claim under the banner of “innovation” — and how little we'll do to stop him.TOWNS TO THRUST AND THRONEMusk isn't just defying gravity — he's defying law. In South Texas, a place called Starbase has taken shape along the Gulf Coast, hugging the edge of SpaceX's rocket launch site. What looks like a town is really something else: a launchpad not just for spacecraft, but for a new form of privatized sovereignty.VIDEO: Time compresses at the edge of Starbase: a slow-built frontier where launch infrastructure rises faster than oversight. Source: Google EarthThis isn't unprecedented. The United States has a long lineage of company towns — places where corporations controlled land, housing, labor, and local government. Pullman, Illinois is the most famous. But while labor historians and economic geographers have documented their economic and social impact, few have examined them as legal structures of power.That's the gap legal scholar Brian Highsmith identifies in Governing the Company Town. That omission matters — because these places aren't just undemocratic. They often function as quasi-sovereign legal shells, designed to serve capital, not people.Incorporation is the trick. In Texas, any area with at least 201 residents can petition to become a general-law municipality. That's exactly what Musk has done. In a recent vote (212 to 6) residents approved the creation of an official town — Starbase. Most of those residents are SpaceX employees living on company-owned land…with a Tesla in the driveway. The result is a legally recognized town, politically constructed. SpaceX controls the housing, the workforce, and now, the electorate. Even the mayor is a SpaceX affiliate. With zoning powers and taxing authority, Musk now holds tools usually reserved for public governments — and he's using them to build for rockets, not residents…unless they're employees.VIDEO: Starbase expands frame by frame, not just as a company town, but as a legal experiment — where land, labor, and law are reassembled to serve orbit over ordinance. Source: Google EarthQuinn Slobodian, a historian of neoliberalism and global capitalism, shows how powerful companies and individuals increasingly use legal tools to redesign borders and jurisdictions to their advantage. In his book, Cracked Up Capitalism, he shows how jurisdiction becomes the secret weapon of the capitalist state around the world. I wrote about a techno-optimist fantasy state on the island of Roatán, part of the Bay Islands in Honduras a couple years ago. It isn't new. Disney used the same playbook in 1967 with Florida's Reedy Creek District — deeding slivers of land to employees to meet incorporation rules, then governing without real opposition. Highsmith draws a straight line to Musk: both use municipal law not to serve the public, but to avoid it. In Texas, beach access is often blocked near Starbase — even when rockets aren't launching. A proposed bill would make ignoring an evacuation order a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by jail.Even if Starbase never fully resembles a traditional town, that's beside the point. What Musk is really revealing isn't some urban design oasis but how municipal frameworks can still be weaponized for private control. Through zoning laws, incorporation statutes, and infrastructure deals, corporations can shape legal entities that resemble cities but function more like logistical regimes.And yet, this tactic draws little sustained scrutiny. As Highsmith reminds us, legal scholarship has largely ignored how municipal tools are deployed to consolidate corporate power. That silence matters — because what looks like a sleepy launch site in Texas may be something much larger: a new form of rule disguised as infrastructure.ABOVE THE LAW, BELOW THE LANDElon Musk isn't just shaping towns — he's engineering systems. His tunnels, satellites, and rockets stretch across and beyond traditional borders. These aren't just feats of engineering. They're tools of control designed to bypass civic oversight and relocate governance into private hands. He doesn't need to overthrow the state to escape regulation. He simply builds around it…and in the case of Texas, with it.Architect and theorist Keller Easterling, whose work examines how infrastructure quietly shapes political life, argues that these systems are not just supports for power — they are power. Infrastructure itself is a kind of operating system for shaping the city, states, countries…and now space.Starlink, SpaceX's satellite constellation, provides internet access to users around the world. In Ukraine, it became a vital communications network after Russian attacks on local infrastructure. Musk enabled access — then later restricted it. He made decisions with real geopolitical consequences. No president. No Congress. Just a private executive shaping war from orbit.And it's not just Ukraine. Starlink is now active in dozens of countries, often without formal agreements from national regulators. It bypasses local telecom laws, surveillance rules, and data protections. For authoritarian regimes, that makes it dangerous. But for democracies, it raises a deeper question: who governs the sky?Right now, the answer is: no one. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 assumes that nation-states, not corporations, are the primary actors in orbit. But Starlink functions in a legal grey zone, using low Earth orbit as a loophole in international law…aided and abetted by the U.S. defense department.VIDEO: Thousands of Starlink satellites, visualized in low Earth orbit, encircle the planet like a privatized exosphere—reshaping global communication while raising questions of governance, visibility, and control. Source: StarlinkThe result is a telecom empire without borders. Musk commands a growing share of orbital infrastructure but answers to no global regulator. The International Telecommunication Union can coordinate satellite spectrum, but it can't enforce ethical or geopolitical standards. Musk alone decides whether Starlink aids governments, rebels, or armies. As Quinn Slobodian might put it, this is exception-making on a planetary scale.Now let's go underground. The Boring Company digs high-speed tunnels beneath cities like Las Vegas, sidestepping standard planning processes. These projects often exclude transit agencies and ignore public engagement. They're built for select users, not the public at large. Local governments, eager for tech-driven investment, offer permits and partnerships — even if it means circumventing democratic procedures.Taken together — Starlink above, Boring Company below, Tesla charging networks on the ground — Musk's empire moves through multiple layers of infrastructure, each reshaping civic life without formal accountability. His systems carry people, data, and energy — but not through the public channels meant to regulate them. They're not overseen by voters. They're not authorized by democratic mandate. Yet they profoundly shape how people move, communicate, and live.Geographer Deborah Cowen, whose research focuses on the global logistics industry, argues that infrastructure like ports, fiber-optic cables, and pipelines have become tools of geopolitical strategy. Logistics as a form of war by other means. Brian Highsmith argues this is a form of “functional fragmentation” — breaking governance into layers and loopholes that allow corporations to sidestep collective control. These aren't mere workarounds. They signal a deeper shift in how power is organized — not just across space, but through it.This kind of sovereignty is easy to miss because it doesn't always resemble government. But when a private actor controls transit systems, communication networks, and even military connectivity — across borders, beneath cities, and in orbit — we're not just dealing with infrastructure. We're dealing with rule.And, just like with company towns, the legal scholarship is struggling to catch up. These layered, mobile, and non-territorial regimes challenge our categories of law and space alike. What these fantastical projects inspire is often awe. But what they should require is law.AMNESIA AIDS THE AMBITIOUSElon Musk may dazzle with dreams full-blown, but the roots of his power are not his own. The United States has a long tradition of private actors ruling like governments — with public blessing. These aren't outliers. They're part of a national pattern, deeply embedded in our legal geography: public authority outsourced to private ambition.The details vary, but the logic repeats. Whether it's early colonial charters, speculative land empires, company towns, or special districts carved for tech campuses, American history is full of projects where law becomes a scaffold for private sovereignty. Rather than recount every episode, let's just say from John Winthrop to George Washington to Walt Disney to Elon Musk, America has always made room for men who rule through charters, not elections.Yet despite the frequency of these arrangements, the scholarship has been oddly selective.According to Highsmith, legal academia has largely ignored the institutional architecture that makes company towns possible in the first place: incorporation laws, zoning frameworks, municipal codes, and districting rules. These aren't neutral bureaucratic instruments. They're jurisdictional design tools, capable of reshaping sovereignty at the micro-scale. And when used strategically, they can be wielded by corporations to create functional states-within-a-state — governing without elections, taxing without consent, and shaping public life through private vision.From a critical geography perspective, the problem is just as stark. Scholars have long studied the uneven production of space — how capital reshapes landscapes to serve accumulation. But here, space isn't just produced — it's governed. And it's governed through techniques of legal enclosure, where a patch of land becomes a jurisdictional exception, and a logistics hub or tech campus becomes a mini-regime.Starbase, Snailbrook, Reedy Creek, and even Google's Sidewalk Labs are not just spatial projects — they're sovereign experiments in spatial governance, where control is layered through contracts, tax breaks, and municipal proxies.But these arrangements don't arise in a vacuum. Cities often aren't choosing between public and private control — they're choosing between austerity and access to cash. In the United States, local governments are revenue-starved by design. Most lack control over income taxes or resource royalties, and depend heavily on sales taxes, property taxes, and development fees. This creates a perverse incentive: to treat corporations not as entities to regulate, but as lifelines to recruit and appease.Desperate for jobs and investment, cities offer zoning concessions, infrastructure deals, and tax abatements, even when they come with little democratic oversight or long-term guarantees. Corporate actors understand this imbalance — and exploit it. The result is a form of urban hostage-taking, where governance is bartered piecemeal in exchange for the promise of economic survival.A more democratized fiscal structure — one that empowers cities through equitable revenue-sharing, progressive taxation, or greater control over land value capture — might reduce this dependency. It would make it possible for municipalities to plan with their citizens instead of negotiating against them. It would weaken the grip of corporate actors who leverage scarcity into sovereignty. But until then, as long as cities are backed into a fiscal corner, we shouldn't be surprised when they sell off their power — one plot or parking lot at a time.Highsmith argues that these structures demand scrutiny — not just for their economic impact, but for their democratic consequences. These aren't just quirks of local law. They are the fault lines of American federalism — where localism becomes a loophole, and fragmentation becomes a formula for private rule.And yet, these systems persist with minimal legal friction and even less public awareness. Because they don't always look like sovereignty. Sometimes they look like a housing deal. A fast-tracked zoning change. A development district with deferred taxes. A campus with private shuttles and subsidized utilities. They don't announce themselves as secessions — but they function that way.We've been trained to see these projects as innovation, not governance. As entrepreneurship, not policy. But when a company owns the homes, builds the roads, controls the data, and sets the rules, it's not just offering services — it's exercising control. As political theorist Wendy Brown has argued, neoliberalism reshapes civic life around the image of the entrepreneur, replacing democratic participation with market performance.That shift plays out everywhere: universities run like corporations, cities managed like startups. Musk isn't the exception — he's the clearest expression of a culture that mistakes private ambition for public good. Musk once tweeted, “If you must know, I am a utopian anarchist of the kind best described by Iain Banks.” In a New York Times article, Jill Lepore quoted Banks as saying his science fiction books were about “'hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism.' He also expressed astonishment that anyone could read his books as promoting free-market libertarianism, asking, ‘Which bit of not having private property and the absence of money in the Culture novels have these people missed?'”The issue isn't just that we've allowed these takeovers — it's that we've ignored the tools enabling them: incorporation, annexation, zoning, and special districts. As Brian Highsmith notes, this quiet shift in power might not have surprised one of our constitution authors, James Madison, but it would have troubled him. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned not of monarchs, but of factions — small, organized interests capturing government for their own ends. His solution was restraint through scaling oppositional voices. “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed...and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”— James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (1787)Today, the structure meant to restrain factions has become their playbook. These actors don't run for office — they arrive with charters, contracts, and capital. They govern not in the name of the people, but of “efficiency” and “innovation.” And they don't need to control a nation when a zoning board will do.Unchecked, we risk mistaking corporate control for civic order — and repeating a pattern we've barely begun to name.We were told, sold, and promised a universe of shared governance — political, spatial, even orbital. But Madison didn't trust promises. He trusted structure. He feared what happens when small governments fall to powerful interests — when law becomes a lever for private gain. That fear now lives in legal districts, rocket towns, and infrastructure built to rule. Thousands of satellites orbit the Earth, not launched by publics, but by one man with tools once reserved for states. What was once called infrastructure now governs. What was once geography now obeys.Our maps may still show roads and rails and pipes and ports — but not the fictions beneath them, or the factions they support.References:Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. Zone Books.Cowen, D. (2014). The deadly life of logistics: Mapping violence in global trade. University of Minnesota Press.Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. Verso Books.Highsmith, B. (2022). Governing the company town: How employers use local government to seize political power. Yale Law Journal.Madison, J. (1787). Federalist No. 10. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers. Bantam Books (2003 edition).Slobodian, Q. (2023). Crack-Up Capitalism: Market radicals and the dream of a world without democracy. Metropolitan Books. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Lina Khan recently concluded her term as one of the Biden administration's most controversial leaders. Her tenure as chair of the Federal Trade Commission raised the profile of the relatively obscure antitrust agency charged with protecting competition. Her anti-monopoly outlook and more aggressive enforcement strategies, particularly toward Big Tech market power and protecting workers, earned the ire of the business community and the dedicated vitriol of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.Khan began her term as the youngest-ever appointee of the FTC. She initially rose to prominence for her 2017 Yale Law Journal article, “Amazon's Antitrust Paradox,” which went viral among the antitrust community for its argument that scholars and regulators must look beyond prices to understand what constitutes a harm from a lack of competition, especially in today's digital economy where many services are nominally provided for free to consumers. Fresh out of law school, Khan appeared on a Capitalisn't episode in our first season and wrote for our sister publication at the Stigler Center, ProMarket, as far back as 2018. She also delivered two keynote addresses at the Stigler Center's annual Antitrust and Competition Conferences while FTC chair.On this episode, Khan returns to Capitalisn't to reflect on her tenure, her vision of capitalism, and how her approach to enforcing existing laws with new thinking may have impacted the everyday lives of Americans. How does she respond to her critics, who include major Democratic business leaders? How does she view the new Trump administration, which is continuing many of her transformative policies, including revised merger guidelines and major lawsuits? As a senator, Vice President JD Vance said she was “one of the few people in the Biden administration actually doing a pretty good job.” Reflecting on her work, Khan also touches upon how conflicts of interest among corporate lawyers and consultants, former bureaucrats, and academics distort policymaking, court rulings, and market outcomes. Finally, she highlights the antitrust issues to pay attention to moving forward, such as algorithmic collusion.Show Notes: Also, check out ProMarket's series on the future of the Neo-Brandesian movement, of which Lina Khan is an emblematic figure.

Why is the Supreme Court making some of its most impactful decisions behind closed doors? In this episode, Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate welcome Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the bestselling book The Shadow Docket, to discuss the rise of stealth rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn why unsigned and unexplained decisions—affecting everything from immigration to abortion—are becoming more common and why every American should be paying attention.

Rent control is one of the most hotly debated housing policies, and also one of the most researched. Konstantin Kholodilin reviewed over 200 rent control studies, dating back decades and spanning six continents, and he joins us to give an overview of their results.Show notes:Kholodilin, K. A. (2024). Rent control effects through the lens of empirical research: An almost complete review of the literature. Journal of Housing Economics, 101983.Konstantin's massive database of rent control policies across the world: Longitudinal database of rental housing market regulations: 100+ countries over 100+ years.Kholodilin, K. (2020). Long-term, multicountry perspective on rental market regulations. Housing Policy Debate, 30(6), 994-1015.Wikipedia article on ‘kommunalka' (communal apartment).Fogelson, R. M. (2013). The Great Rent Wars: New York, 1917-1929. Yale University Press.Episode 36 of UCLA Housing Voice on rent control in India with Sahil Gandhi and Richard Green.Willis, J. W. (1948). State rent-control legislation, 1946-1947. The Yale Law Journal, 57(3), 351-376.

Jon Michaels is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. His scholarly and teaching interests include constitutional law, administrative law, national security law, the separation of powers, presidential power, regulation, bureaucracy, and privatization. Michaels is a graduate of Williams College, Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, and Yale Law School, where he served as an articles editor for the Yale Law Journal. Michaels clerked first for Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court. Immediately prior to his appointment at UCLA, Michaels worked as an associate in Arnold & Porter's National Security Law and Public Policy Group in Washington, DC. A two-time winner of the American Constitution Society's Cudahy Award for scholarly excellence in administrative law and an elected member of the American Law Institute, Michaels has written essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Foreign Affairs, Time Magazine, and the Guardian. He is a frequent legal affairs commentator for national and local media outlets. His 2017 book, Constitutional Coup: Privatization's Threat to the American Republic, was published by Harvard University Press. Michaels's second book, titled Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy will be published by Simon & Schuster/Atria in October 2024.

Recorded on Thursday, November 21, 2024, in the wake of the announcement by the International Criminal Court that arrest warrants have been issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, I sought out the insights and expertise of renowned legal scholar Professor Avi Bell, in order to gain his insights into this dreadful development, and to bring his conclusion to you by way of this conversation. Professor Avi Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar Ilan University and the University of San Diego School of Law. His fields of academic research include property and intellectual property law, international law, the laws of war, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Professor Bell is considered one of the leading researchers in Israel in the field of economic analysis of law, and he is a member of the Israeli Law & Economics Association as well as the American Law & Economics Association. His papers have been published in leading law journals including Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review and Columbia Law Review. Bell received his BA and JD from the University of Chicago and his doctorate from Harvard University. He was director of the Global Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs from 2008-2009.I hope you get as much out of this conversation as I did and I encourage you to spread this discussion far and wide. Purchase your ticket to The MirYam Institute Annual Regional Briefing, 2024 in NYC, here.Support the showThe MirYam Institute. Israel's Future in Israel's Hands.Subscribe to our podcast: https://podfollow.com/1493910771Follow The MirYam Institute X: https://bit.ly/3jkeUyxFollow Benjamin Anthony X: https://bit.ly/3hZeOe9Like Benjamin Anthony Facebook: https://bit.ly/333Ct93Like The MirYam Institute Facebook: https://bit.ly/2SarHI3Follow Benjamin Anthony Instagram: https://bit.ly/30m6uPGFollow The MirYam Institute Instagram: https://bit.ly/3l5fvED

In this week's episode of then & now, we present a recording of a recent event hosted by the UCLA History Department, "Why History Matters: Reproductive Rights and Justice." This event brought together experts to explore the far-reaching effects of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022. Hosted by Kevin Terraciano, the conversation delves into the historical misuse of legal doctrines to limit reproductive freedoms and calls for a comprehensive reproductive justice framework that extends beyond abortion to include the right to have or not have children and to raise children in safe environments. Professor Cary Franklin critiques the Supreme Court's "history and tradition" test in Dobbs, arguing it distorts historical perspectives on liberty and equality, while Dean Alexandra Minna Stern discusses the lasting impacts of eugenic sterilization on marginalized groups, emphasizing how patterns of reproductive oppression persist today. Professor Elizabeth O'Brien examines Mexico's recent Supreme Court rulings decriminalizing abortion and highlights grassroots activism's role in shaping a broader framework for reproductive rights in Latin America. In the U.S., maternal mortality and preventable deaths have risen sharply since the Dobbs decision, underscoring the panel's call for historical research to inform advocacy as surveillance and criminalization of reproductive health grow. Through these comparative perspectives, the discussion powerfully illustrates how understanding historical contexts can guide efforts to protect and expand reproductive rights in the U.S.Kevin Terraciano is a Professor and the Department Chair of History at UCLA. He specializes in Latin American history, especially Mexico and the Indigenous cultures and languages of central and southern Mexico. Among many books and translations, he is the author of The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: Ñudzahui History, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries, a comprehensive study of Mixtec society and their adaptation to colonial rule.Cary Franklin is the McDonald/Wright Chair of Law at UCLA and serves as the faculty director of the Williams Institute at UCLA as well as the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. Her work has appeared in numerous publications including the Harvard Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the NYU Law Review, the Supreme Court Review, the Virginia Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal.Alexandra Minna Stern is a professor of English and history and the Dean of UCLA's Division of Humanities. She co-directs the Sterilization and Social Justice Lab, which studies eugenic sterilization practices in the U.S. and their impact on marginalized groups. She is the author of the award-winning Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America, and the author of Telling Genes: The Story of Genetic Counseling in America, which was named a Choice 2013 Outstanding Academic Title in Health Sciences.Elizabeth O'Brien is an Assistant Professor in the UCLA Meyer and Renee Luskin Department of History, specializing in the history of reproductive health in Mexico. Professor O'Brien is also a member of the cross-field group in the History of Gender and Sexuality. Professor O'Brien's 2023 book on colonialism and reproductive healthcare in Mexico, Surgery and Salvation: The 

My guest today is Courtney Cahill, a Chancellor's Professor of Law at UC Irvine School of Law. Professor Cahill is a scholar of constitutional law, anti-discrimination law, sex equality, and LGBTQ equality. Her work examines the role of disgust in lawmaking and the synergies between sex equality and LGBTQ equality. She joins us today to discuss her latest project, Busted: Policing Women on Top, forthcoming in 2026 from Oxford University Press. Cahill attended Yale Law School after graduating from Princeton University with a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature. UVA Law 3Ls Anthony Freyre and Kimberly Garcia co-host today's episode. Further Reading:Cahill Bio: https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/cahill/ Sex Equality's Irreconcilable Differences, 132 Yale Law Journal (forthcoming)Reproductive Exceptionalism in and Beyond Birthrights, 100 B.U. L. Rev. Online 152 (2020)The New Maternity, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 2221 (2020)After Sex, 97 Neb. L. Rev. 1 (2018)Krawiec Bio: https://www.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/kdk4q/1181653

For 49 years, from 1973 until 2022, the Supreme Court declared that the US Constitution protected abortion rights. With this precedent overturned, decision making about reproductive rights now resides with state governments. But the court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization relied on a partial and inaccurate understanding of American history, and its claims to be a pro-democracy decision were disingenuous. Dobbs is just one example of the court smashing precedents in the last few years. Melissa Murray is the Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at New York University, where she specializes in family law, constitutional law, and reproductive rights and justice. She has written for a wide range of academic journals and popular publications and regularly provides legal commentary for several major media outlets. Her credits include the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, and many others. She's a legal analyst at MSNBC and is also one of the cohosts of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, which focuses on the Supreme Court. https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/ https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250881397/thefallofroe

Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional and national security law. His award-winning scholarship has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, and Harvard Law Review, and he has written popular essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and Guardian. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court clerk, Jon is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project. His latest book, co-written with David Noll, is VIGILANTE NATION: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens our Democracy. Jon and I discuss his new book and the increasing use of vigilantism by the Republican Party and red states in targeting vulnerable groups in America to influence cultural, legal and political outcomes. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

On episode 222, we welcome Jon Michaels and David Noll to discuss the alliance between vigilante groups and governments in the US, the four types of vigilantism and how they affect our lives, how vigilante groups utilize state laws to limit freedom of movement, the roots of vigilantism in the slavery era, the argument of individual liberty as a veil for tyranny, and the societal effects of the merger between business interests and right-wing cultural warriors. Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional, administrative, and national-security law. His award-winning scholarship has been published in The Yale Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, and the Harvard Law Review; his popular essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, and The Forward. A Yale Law graduate and former Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute, serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project, and is a faculty affiliate of UCLA's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. His first book, Constitutional Coup, was published by Harvard University Press. David Noll is the associate dean for faculty research and development and a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. His scholarly writings on civil procedure, complex litigation, and administrative law have appeared in the California Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review, among others, and his popular writing has appeared in venues including The New York Times, Politico, Slate, and the New York Law Journal. A graduate of Columbia University and New York University School of Law, Noll is an academic fellow of the National Institute for Civil Justice. He clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. | Jon Michaels and David Noll | ► Website | http://www.jondmichaels.com/about ► Twitter 1| https://x.com/davidlnoll ► Twitter 2 | https://x.com/JonDMichaels ► Bluesky | https://bsky.app/profile/david.noll.org ► Vigilante Nation Book | https://amzn.to/3zEjQvM Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

Cities have lived with exclusionary zoning for decades, if not generations. Is inclusionary zoning the answer? Inclusionary zoning, or IZ, requires developers to set aside a share of units in new buildings for low- or moderate-income households, seeking to increase the supply of affordable homes and integrate neighborhoods racially and socioeconomically. But how well does it accomplish these goals? This week we're joined by the Mercatus Center's Dr. Emily Hamilton to discuss her research on how IZ programs have impacted homebuilding and housing prices in the Washington, D.C. region, and the ironic reality that the success of inclusionary zoning relies on the continued existence of exclusionary zoning. Also, Shane and Mike rant about nexus studies. Originally aired in 2022.Show notes:Hamilton, E. (2021). Inclusionary zoning and housing market outcomes. Cityscape, 23(1), 161-194.Manville, M., & Osman, T. (2017). Motivations for growth revolts: Discretion and pretext as sources of development conflict. City & Community, 16(1), 66-85.Bento, A., Lowe, S., Knaap, G. J., & Chakraborty, A. (2009). Housing market effects of inclusionary zoning. Cityscape, 7-26.Li, F., & Guo, Z. (2022). How Does an Expansion of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Affect Housing Supply? Evidence From London (UK). Journal of the American Planning Association, 88(1), 83-96.Schleicher, D. (2012). City unplanning. Yale Law Journal, 7(122), 1670-1737.Phillips, S. (2022). Building Up the" Zoning Buffer": Using Broad Upzones to Increase Housing Capacity Without Increasing Land Values. UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies.Background on the inclusionary zoning program in Los Angeles (struck down in court, but later enabled by the state legislature).More on housing voucher policy in our interview with Rob Collinson.More on minimum lot size reform in our interview with M. Nolan Gray.A blog post questioning whether new market-rate housing actually “creates” demand for low-income housing.Los Angeles Affordable Housing Linkage Fee nexus study.

Kate and Leah speak with Rebecca Nagle, author of By the Fire We Carry: The Generations-Long Fight for Justice on Native Land about the battlefield that is federal Indian law. Then, all three hosts speak with law professors Reva Siegel and Mary Ziegler about their paper for the Yale Law Journal, Comstockery: How Government Censorship Gave Birth to the Law of Sexual and Reproductive Freedom, and May Again Threaten It. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

J.D. Vance brought Yale Law back into the spotlight. ----- As soon as J.D. Vance found himself on the GOP ticket, everyone who remembered him from his Yale Law days shared their thoughts and brought out their receipts. “JD's rise is a triumph for angry jerks everywhere,” isn't a ringing endorsement. The campaign also tried to pull a fast one with some tricky phrasing about his time on the Yale Law Journal. Kirkland & Ellis adopts a carrot and stick approach -- rewarding associates for recruiting and punishing partners for leaving. And we talk about the Baldwin case.

J.D. Vance brought Yale Law back into the spotlight. ----- As soon as J.D. Vance found himself on the GOP ticket, everyone who remembered him from his Yale Law days shared their thoughts and brought out their receipts. “JD's rise is a triumph for angry jerks everywhere,” isn't a ringing endorsement. The campaign also tried to pull a fast one with some tricky phrasing about his time on the Yale Law Journal. Kirkland & Ellis adopts a carrot and stick approach -- rewarding associates for recruiting and punishing partners for leaving. And we talk about the Baldwin case.

Our long awaited Bankers vs. Lawyers podcast episode! Wondering about the differences and similarities between traditionally "good" jobs like doctor, banker, and lawyer? Or maybe how to transition from a career in law to one in high finance? We are going to pull back the curtain and explore the business, lifestyle, and culture of "big law", while debunking the myths and misconceptions you may have from watching popular shows like "Suits", "Law and Order", and "The Good Wife". Today's episode specifically covers Corporate Law and its intersection with high finance. Our incredible guests are two of NYC's most prominent attorneys: Jake Kling of Wachtell Lipton, who specializes in Mergers & Acquisitions law, and Roshni Cariello of Davis Polk, who specializes in Capital Markets law.We get into the path to becoming an attorney, the process of applying to law school, how important "prestige" of your law school is to landing a job, compensation, hours, culture, and much much more. Bios:Jake Kling is a partner in Wachtell Lipton's Corporate Department. Jake's practice primarily focuses on mergers, acquisitions and dispositions, securities law matters, and advising companies and boards of directors on takeover defense, shareholder activism and general corporate governance matters. He has advised a broad range of public and private clients across multiple industries, including banking, financial services, healthcare and pharmaceutical, life sciences, technology, media and telecom, sports, industrial, retail, private equity and real estate.Jake received an A.B. magna cum laude in mathematical economics from Brown University, and a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he served as Projects Editor of the Yale Law Journal.  Jake also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Dennis Jacobs, then Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.In 2024, Jake was named to the Forbes inaugural list of America's Top 200 Lawyers across all practice areas nationwide,  one of seven M&A lawyers included on the list.  In 2023, The American Lawyer named Jake the “Young Lawyer of the Year—Corporate”, selecting him as the top corporate lawyer in the country under the age of 40.  Jake was also named a “Dealmaker of the Year” by the New York Law Journal, was one of five M&A lawyers chosen as a Law360 MVP, was one of four M&A lawyers selected for Bloomberg Law's “They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40” awards, and was named one of the 500 Leading Dealmakers in America by Lawdragon. BTI Consulting Group selected Jake as a BTI Client Service All-Star for his commitment to exceptional client service.  Roshni Banker Cariello is a partner at Davis Polk advising corporate and financial institution clients on capital markets transactions, including initial public offerings and other equity offerings, investment-grade, high-yield and convertible debt financings, private placements and liability management. Clients also turn to her for advice on general corporate, governance and securities law matters. Roshni's experience spans industries including consumer, retail, technology, renewables and industrials.In 2023, Law360 named Roshni a “Rising Star” in capital markets, and she is recognized by Chambers USA for her work with SPACs. Roshni graduated cum laude with a B.A. in Government from Dartmouth College and a JD from Columbia Law School where she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and a Notes Editor for Columbia Business Law Review.Follow us on Instagram and Tik Tok at @thewallstreetskinnyhttps://www.instagram.com/thewallstreetskinny/

Meet Judge Roy K. Altman, a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of Florida. Judge Altman was born in Caracas, Venezuela and immigrated with his family to Miami. After growing up in Miami, he graduated from Columbia University where he quarterbacked the football team and pitched on the baseball team. Following Columbia, Judge Altman went on to study at Yale Law where he served as Projects Editor for the Yale Law Journal.After Yale, Judge Altman went on to serve as a federal prosecutor, twice receiving the Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys' Award for Superior Performance. After several years as a partner in a law firm, on April 4, 2019, Judge Altman was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. At 36 years old, Judge Altman became the youngest federal district court judge in the country and the youngest federal judge ever appointed in the Southern District of Florida.In my opinion, you are about to meet a generational mind. Born in 1982, Judge Altman is technically a millennial. Forget millennials, few Boomers or Gen Xers have reached the heights Judge Altman has obtained. To put it into context, in the United States, there are 1.35 million lawyers, and 30,000 of them are judges. Of that 30,000, only 870 are Article III judges. This means that after graduating law school, a lawyer has a 0.064% chance of becoming an Article III judge.It isn't an overstatement to say that Judge Altman is one of the most accomplished individuals in America. But this achievement isn't what is most impressive about him. What makes Judge Altman outstanding is his moral leadership.An example of his moral leadership is highlighted in a recent article in Bloomberg.In my view, Judge Altman is setting the type of example Americans should follow. He is pursuing an honest and fact-based discussion about the conflict while refusing to cower to the mob of moral relativism.When I think about Judge Altman and his actions after October 7, I recall a quote from the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks as he analyzed Esther's plea: “How can I stand and watch disaster befall my people?” To this, Rabbi Sacks said, “To be moral is to live with and for others, sharing their responsibility, participating in their suffering, protesting their wrongs, arguing their cause.”Thankfully, because of Judge Altman, we have one of the great legal minds of the 21st century arguing the cause of Israel, the Jewish people, and all of Western civilization.

WE GOT US NOW #KeepFamiliesConnected campaign series WELCOME to Season 4 of the WE GOT US NOW Podcast series POWERED by The Just Trust For our 6th annual #KeepFamiliesConnected multimedia campaign series that runs from Mother's Day through Father's Day, WE spotlight voices from our community, and uplift our allies working across the field to create a just and equitable society that seeks to keep justice-impacted families connected. Chesa Boudin is the founding executive director of Berkeley's Criminal Law & Justice Center. He is an attorney and graduate of Yale College and Yale law school. He attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship. He clerked for two federal judges, worked for years as a deputy public defender in San Francisco, and became district attorney of San Francisco in 2020 until his recall in 2022. Boudin's work has appeared or been profiled in The Yale Law Journal, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune, and many more. In this episode, Chesa talks about what it was like growing up as a child with incarcerated parents -- his Mom, Kathy Boudin and his Dad, David Gilbert, spent a combined 62 years in prison from the time Chesa was 14 months old. He discusses being raised by his adopted parents in a privileged environment, the challenges he grappled with growing up visiting his biological parents, and the significant resources and supportive community that helped him harness his energy as a child into a resilient adult able to face challenging circumstances. This episode is dedicated, In Loving Memory of Chesa's biological Mother, Kathy Boudin. FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO WEGOTUSNOW.org | Instagram | Twitter LISTEN to the WE GOT US NOW Podcast on SPOTIFY, APPLE Podcasts and all podcasts platforms. #WEGOTUSNOW  #10MillionInspired #ChildWellBeing #SocialConnection #Community #MentalHealthMatters #ChildrenwithIncarceratedParents  #keepfamiliesconnected #WeGotUsNowPodcast

A presentation from "Censorship and Official Lies: The End of Truth in America?" This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.Full Written Text (Audio link is above): Over the past three years, the word “sedition” has again become popular among regime agents and their friends in the media. It's certainly not the first time the word has enjoyed a renaissance. It's frequently employed whenever the ruling class wishes us to become hysterical about various real and imagined enemies, both domestic and foreign.This time, the regime's paranoia about sedition was prompted by the Capitol Riot in January 2021, when we were told that Trump supporters nearly carried out a coup d'etat. Since then, regime operatives have frequently referred to Trump supporters and Trump himself as seditionists.Yet, out of the approximately 850 people charged with crimes of various sorts, only a very small number have been charged with anything even close to treason or insurrection. Rather, most charges are various forms of infractions related to vandalism and trespassing. However, because these charges have to do with the regime's sacred office buildings, the penalties are outrageously harsh compared to similar acts, were they to occur on private property.For a small handful of defendants, however—the ones the Justice Department has most enthusiastically targeted—the federal prosecutors have brought the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”Why not charges of treason, rebellion or insurrection? Well, if federal prosecutors though they could get a conviction for actual rebellion, insurrection, or treason for the January 6 riot, they would have brought those charges.But they didn't.What they did do is turn to seditious conspiracy, which is far easier to prove in court, and is—like all conspiracy charges in American law—essentially a thought crime and a speech crime. Seditious conspiracy is not actual sedition, or rebellion, or insurrection. That is, there is no overt act necessary, nor is it necessary that the alleged sedition or insurrection actually take place or be executed. What really matters is that two or more people said things that prosecutors could later claim were part of a conspiracy to do something that may or may not have ever happened.Moreover, the regime now routinely employs other types of conspiracy charges for prosecuting Americans supposedly guilty for various crimes against the state. At the moment, for example, Donald Trump faces three different conspiracy charges for saying that the 2020 election was illegitimate.As we shall see, purported crimes like seditious conspiracy are crimes based largely on things people have said. They are a type of speech crime. Now, some may ask how that is even possible if there is freedom of speech in this country.Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.The federal government has long sought tools to get around the First amendment, and one of them is seditious conspiracy.Now, the term seditious conspiracy contains two pieces. There's the sedition part, and there is the conspiracy part. Let's explore both parts of this in a bit more detail to see what we can learn about this inventive way the regime has developed to silence those who question the legitimacy of the American state.Seditious Conspiracy Was Invented to Get Around Limitations on Treason Prosecutions From the very beginning, federal politicians have sought ways to create political crimes above and beyond the Constitution's very limited definition of treason. This began with the Sedition Act of 1798, and continued with the creation of the Seditious Conspiracy law in 1861, and carried on through to the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940, and a plethora of various types of “conspiracy” laws used to punish many different types of antiwar and dissident activities since then.All of these laws, involve restrictions on freedom of speech, and open up suspects to punishments for saying things.The reason why federal politicians believe they need extra sedition laws on top of treason can be found in the fact that the framers of the Constitution defined treason in very specific and limiting terms:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Note the use of the word “only” to specify that the definition of treason shall not be construed as something more broad than what is in the text. As with much of what we now find in the Bill of Rights, this language stems from fears that the US federal government would indulge in some of the same abuses that had occurred under the English crown, especially in the days of the Stuart monarchs. Kings had often construed “treason” to mean acts, thoughts, and alleged conspiracies far beyond the act of actually taking up arms against the state.Treason could have been anything the king didn't like, and it how you end up with a situation in which St. Thomas More was executed for treason simply for refusing to say that the king was head of the church.By contrast, in the US Constitution, the only flexibility given to Congress is in determining the punishment for treason.Naturally, those who favored greater federal power chafed at these limitations and sought more federal laws that would punish alleged crimes against the state. It only took the Federalists ten years to come up with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stated:That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States … or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, … from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.Note the references to “intent,” “counsel,” and “advise” as criminal acts so long as these types of speech are employed in a presumed effort to obstruct government officials. In the twentieth century, we will again see this type of language designed to ensnare Americans in so-called crimes of conspiracy.A great many Americans—some of whom who still took the radical liberalism of the revolutionary era seriously—saw the Sedition Act for what it was. A blatant assault on the rights of Americans, and an attack on freedom of speech. Thanks to the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 the Sedition Act was allowed to expire,Then, for sixty years, the United States government had no laws addressing sedition on the books. But the heart of the 1798 Sedition Act would be revived. As passed in July 1861, the new Seditious Conspiracy statute statedthat if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or … prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States. . . . Shall be guilty of a high crime.Note the crimes here are not overt acts like “overthrowing the government” of “delaying the execution of a law.” No, the crime here is conspiring to do something about it. That is, saying things about it to another person. That is what constitutes “conspiracy” here.Now, some people who have a rather benign view of the state might think, well, people shouldn't conspire to do bad things. Well, in real life, conspiracy as prosecuted, does not necessarily look like a group of bad guys getting together in a dark room and explaining how they're going to blow up some government building. That's Hollywood stuff.In real life, people can be found guilty of conspiring with people with whom they have never been in the same room, or with whom the "conspirator" expressed any actual violent intent.We'll return to this, and this is just something to keep in mind, whenever looking at government conspiracy laws.Given the timing of the seditious conspiracy legislation that I just read—i.e., in 1861, following the secession of several Southern states—it is assumed that the legislation originated to address alleged Confederate treason. This is not quite the case. The legislation did enjoy considerable support from those who were especially militant in their opposition to the Confederacy. However, Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio—who would later be exiled to the Confederacy for opposing Lincoln's war—supported the bill precisely because he thought it would help punish opponents of the fugitive slave laws.” Congress had initially become serious about punishing “conspiracies” not in response to Southern secession, but in response to John Brown's 1859 raid at Harper's Ferry.Thus, there was support for the idea in the South before the war. Soon thereafter, however, the Confederate secession and fears of rebellion helped enlarge the coalition in favor of a new sedition law. The new sedition law represented a significant expansion of the idea of “crimes against the state.” Senator Stephen Douglas, the bill's sponsor understood this perfectly well, statingYou must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. … If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, [a reference to John Brown] why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act?Others were more suspicious of expanding federal power in this way, however. Sen. Lazarus Powell and eight other Democrats presented a statement opposing the passage of the bill. Specifically, Powell and his allies believed the new seditious conspiracy law would be a de facto move in the direction of allowing the federal government to expand the definition of treason offered by the federal constitution. The statement read:The creation of an offense, resting in intention alone, without overt act, would render nugatory the provision last quoted, [i.e., the treason definition in the Constitution] and the door would be opened for those similar oppressions and cruelties which, under the excitement of political struggles, have so often disgraced the past history of the world.Powell is here describing what George Orwell would later call a “thoughtcrime.” This “crime” Powell tells us, rests “in intention alone, without overt act.” To anyone who actually valued freedom in 1861, this would set off major alarm bells.Even worse, Powell saw that the new legislation would provide to the federal government “the utmost latitude to prosecutions founded on personal enmity and political animosity and the suspicions as to intention which they inevitably engender.”Like so many political crimes invented by regimes, the legislation tends to grant unusual flexibility and discretion in prosecuting the state's perceived enemies. This opens up political dissidents to new kinds of prosecution.Such legislation COULD have been used against opponents of the fugitive slave acts, as well as against opponents of federal conscription during the war. After all, opponents of both the Civil War draft and the Vietnam War draft “conspired” to destroy government property—as with the heroic draft-card burnings of the Catonsville Nine, for example.It would be far harder to prove in court that such acts constituted treason, so sedition laws have paved to way for more frequently prosecuting various acts of resistance against the regime and its crimes.It's bad enough that federal policy makers schemed to insert into federal law new crimes against the state. But, as Powell correctly noted, the greater danger is in the part of the sedition law that enables prosecutions for conspiracy.What Is Conspiracy?So now we look at the other component of seditious conspiracy: the conspiracy part.Now conspiracy laws are used far more broadly than for political crimes. They are also used in the war on drugs and countless other federal legal crusades.Current federal conspiracy laws outlaw conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Other provisions include conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct, ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes, regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.This latter point is an important distinction. As was explicit in the Sedition Act of 1798, so it is today: it is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone —i.e., that there be any actual victim. Indeed, conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes that might occur, but have not.Moreover, it is not even necessary in all cases that a "conspirator" take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme, It is also the case that Many have no such explicit overt act requirement. Even in those cases where some "affirmative step" or overt act take place, it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The "act" could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.In a 2019 interview with the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted his own problem with conspiracy charges:If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But, at the present time in our history and in fact, for all of our history, regrettably, an agreement to commit a felony, agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement, constitutes an independent crime. ... In the world of freedom, where you and I and people reading this live, conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, all accepted [that] crime contained an element of harm. Today, crime is whatever the government says it is.Napolitano is right, and the fact that crime is whatever the government says it is becomes apparent in one of the other key problems with conspiracy laws. Namely, as one legal commentator put it, “few things [are] left so doubtful in the criminal law, as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.”That is, at what point do a bunch of people talking about things become a criminal act. The law is very vague on this, and it is why it's not so easy to say “well, golly, I won't ever be prosecuted for conspiracy, because I don't plan to do anything illegal.But you are not safe because it is not clear in the law, at what point, statements encouraging legal activities become illegal —or statements encouraging legal activities, but without real criminal intent, become felonies.So, you can imagine yourself mouthing off unseriously and saying “we oughta burn down the offices of the department of education.” And then your friend texts back and says “I agree.” Well, congratulations, a prosecutor could easily use that exchange as a way of building a case for conspiracy against you.Would a single expression of an opinion against the regime be enough to convict? Probably not, but combined with other unrelated acts and legal activities such as a stated plan to visit Washington DC or buy a gun for unrelated activities, a prosecutor could, with enough convincing, tie them together in the minds of jurors to get a conviction for conspiracy.Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard of when these disconnected, and often legal acts become crimes, and thus, prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. For an indictment, the prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really part of an illegal conspiracy. This is not difficult, as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich."Not surprisingly, people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.For example, Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in 1932, concluding "It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny, this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like, should find a home in our country."Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925 described conspiracy charges as "that darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery" for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely DefinedConspiracy crimes have been a favorite of government prosecutors in going after political opponents historically.And, In the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal government's many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes, many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges. Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial. The elastic and vague nature of conspiracy "crimes" means that, as legal scholar Thomas Emerson puts it, "the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor."One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters. That is, they were charged with saying things. Although prosecutors could never show the "conspirators" committed any illegal acts—or were ever even in the same room together—Spock and three of his "co-conspirators" were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal, but only on a legal technicality.Spock was able to avoid prison, but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spock's level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors don't like.The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spock—and against antiwar activists in general—was covered in detail in Jessica Mitford's 1969 book The Trial of Dr. Spock, in which she writesThe law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor's tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrate the absurdity of these prosecutions, pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.Again, we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words, rather than any actual criminal acts. Or, as legal scholar Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: "conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat."This ability to treat this "state of mind" as real crime means, in the words of legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller:the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone, and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that "even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing DissentConspiracy laws----including seditious conspiracy of course -- have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes.However, as the Dr. Spock case makes clear, conspiracy prosecutions are also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically, given that conspiracy "crimes" are essentially crimes of words and thoughts, conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970:Throughout various periods of xenophobia, chauvinism, and collective paranoia in American history, conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.Or, put another way by the Journal, through conspiracy prosecutions, the "government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression." Naturally, citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.So, if you and the other members of your gun club like to get a bit over-the-top in your comments about the crimes of America's political class, be careful. The federal informant in your midst may be taking notes.So it was the case with many government informants placed to investigate groups that opposed the War and the draft. Those who simply agreed with radical opinions could find themselves on the wrong end of a federal indictment.Yet, any strict interpretation of the First Amendment—which is the correct type of interpretation—would tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts, however, have long disagreed, and some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected.Yet, in real-life conspiracy prosecutions, it is not easy to determine whether or not a "conspirator" is actually inciting a crime. As legal scholar David Filvaroff notes, the actual intent and effect of the speech in question in these cases is difficult to interpret. Thus, judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:He writes:With a conspiracy to murder, one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little, if any, risk that either the defendants themselves, or the court or jury, will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high, however, in the case of conspiracy to incite.Back to our case about burning down the dept. of education. Was that casual comment a conspiracy to incite arson? Did the defendant intend it as such? This is largely up to the unilateral interpretation of the prosecutor.Most of the time, it is difficult for a "conspirator" to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result.Under these circumstances, innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.The fact that legal acts can become illegal, and the fact that intent need not be proven makes conspiracy crimes, especially seditious conspiracy an excellent avenue for political prosecutions against perceived enemies of the state. It is not a coincidence that most of the charges against Donald Trump are conspiracy charges. They largely come down to Trump making statement both public and private questioning the validity of the election. Prosecutors have turned these opinions into a legal theory that Trump “incited” others to commit crimes. Thanks to conspiracy laws, it is not necessary that any actual crimes take place, or that any actual victims materialize, to get a guilty verdict.Thanks to his wealth, Trump has been able to mount a defense. Most people accused of various conspiracy laws are not so lucky, and countless Americans have endured financial ruin and prison thanks to the vast and abusive powers handed over to prosecutors by conspiracy laws.These are most dangerous when wielded against political opponents because, conspiracy laws essentially nullify the First Amendment and enable prosecutors to turn words into crimes.End All Political CrimesSo what is to be done? Obviously, conspiracy laws, including seditious conspiracy laws, ought to be abolished. All sedition laws are especially ripe for repeal given that the United States survived for decades without any federal political crimes other than treason, narrowly defined.Yet, if we are to win any meaningful victory against the state, we ought to repeal all political crimes, including treason, altogether.For one, political crimes like treason and sedition are simply unnecessary.It is already illegal to blow up buildings. It's especially illegal to do it with people inside the building, whether those people are government employees or not. It is already illegal to murder people, regardless of whether or not they represent the state. Destruction of property is illegal in every state.What political crimes like treason and sedition do is create a special class of people and institutions: government employees and government property, to send the message—via harsher penalties and punishments—that the destruction of government property, or the killing of government employees is worse than crimes against the mere taxpayers who pay all the bills.Political crimes are often subject to fewer regulations protecting the rights of the accused, and are often prosecuted by authorities more directly under the control of the central executive power. In the United States, the federal government has taken over control of most political crimes, centralizing enforcement and thus strengthening the central state. Certainly this has been the case with sedition laws.This scam that all modern regimes embrace exists not to keep the public safe. It exists for propagandistic purposes. These laws exist to send a message.Treason and sedition laws create the illusion that loyalty to the regime to which on presently pays taxes is morally important.Or, as historian Mark Cornwell puts it, regimes have long used crimes such as these “as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance.”Freedom of speech has always been a grave threat to this manipulation of allegiance, and its why sedition and conspiracy laws have so long been employed to weaponize speech against dissidents.The remedy lies in taking a page from those early Jeffersonians who abolished early sedition laws and refused to create new ones. The regime does not need or deserve a way around the First Amendment. The country does not need these “wornout pieces of tyranny” that are sedition and conspiracy laws. Abolish them now.

Watch the video of our conversation on YouTube!This week, I welcome Professor Kate Klonick to the podcast. The name of this episode comes from some amazing swag Kate made for a conference she put on last year on the history of the Trust and Safety profession. (You know how much I love swag.)Kate is among the foremost experts on many things, including platform governance of speech. In 2018, she wrote a paper at Harvard titled “The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech,” which was a first-of-its-kind behind-the-scenes look at how platforms handle content moderation.In 2021, she wrote a piece for the New Yorker about how then-Facebook set up the Oversight Board titled, “Inside the Making of Facebook's Supreme Court.”Recently, she has been writing on these topics at her Substack . One of her pieces I cite all the time is about the end of the golden age of tech accountability where in 2023 she makes the point:[F]or all the of the complaining we've done about Big Tech's lack of cooperation with accountability, transparency, and research efforts, I unfortunately think we'll look back on the last five years as a Golden Age of Tech Company access and cooperation.We talk about all of this and more. Enjoy!Kate Klonick teaches Property, Internet Law, and a seminar on information privacy. Klonick's research focuses on law and technology, most recently on private platform governance of online speech. Klonick's scholarly work has appeared in The Yale Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, The Georgetown Law Journal, the peer-reviewed Copyright Journal of the U.S.A., The Maryland Law Review, and The Southern California Law Review. Her popular press writing has appeared in the New Yorker, New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Lawfare, Slate, Vox and numerous other publications.Professor Klonick holds an A.B. with honors from Brown University where she studied both modern American History and cognitive neuroscience, a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center where she was a Senior Editor on the Georgetown Law Journal, and a Ph.D. in Law from Yale Law School. She clerked for Hon. Eric N. Vitaliano of the Eastern District of New York and Hon. Richard C. Wesley of the Second Circuit. She is an affiliated fellow at the Yale Law School Information Society Project and a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution. She is on leave for 2022-2023 serving as a Visiting Scholar at the Rebooting Social Media Institute at Harvard University. Get full access to Anchor Change with Katie Harbath at anchorchange.substack.com/subscribe

Lawmakers Ignoring The LawIn her influential 2017 Yale Law Journal article, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," Lina Khan argues that the current antitrust framework, which primarily focuses on consumer welfare and price effects, fails to capture the full range of anticompetitive practices employed by digital platforms like Amazon. She suggests that the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws may need to be reinterpreted or updated to address these companies' specific challenges from an anti-trust point of view.Khan writes,"The current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to 'consumer welfare,' defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy."She argues that focusing primarily on price effects overlooks other ways digital platforms can harm competition, such as by leveraging their dominance across multiple markets or using their control over data to create barriers to entry.While Khan does not explicitly state that the Sherman Act is inadequate, her arguments suggest that the current interpretation and application of antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, may not be sufficient to address the challenges posed by Big Tech. Her work has contributed to a broader discussion about updating antitrust enforcement for the digital age. But the harsh truth is - she cannot use current Law because her targets are not breaking it.The DOJ complaint that Apple is a monopoly (not a crime) and abusing its monopoly power fails if the Sherman Act is relied upon to judge criminality. Although the FTC is not bringing the case—it is run by Lina Khan—the DOJ is clearly on the same page as she is in bringing it. In July 2023, I argued, “Khan and Gensler Should be Fired.” The case for that is now even more convincing.As Jason Snell from Six Colors argues:Defining a “monopoly.” Before we get to some of the details of Apple's specific anti-competitive behavior, it's worth noting that this suit is charging Apple with violations of the Sherman antitrust act, which is meant to specifically regulate monopolies. Things that are legal for regular companies to do become illegal when monopolies do them.Part of this document, then, has to establish that Apple holds monopoly power over a specific market. Given that Apple's share of the U.S. smartphone market is about 60 percent, how can it be called a monopoly? The DoJ attempts to square this circle in a few different ways: It uses revenue instead of unit sales, pointing out that Apple and Samsung combined hold 90 percent of the U.S. smartphone market by revenue. It creates a new sub-market, the “Performance Smartphone,” which pushes Apple up to about 70 percent of the market in terms of unit sales. It accuses Apple of attempting to create a monopoly through its various business tactics, which is also illegal.Questions I would ask about this approach: Can you add in Samsung, find a number starting in ninety, and declare something a monopoly? Is revenue share how monopolies are defined? Can you draw borders on a product category in a beneficial way in order to declare it a new market?Apple's position in the U.S. market is certainly strong, but regardless of how you view its behavior, it will be interesting to see if the DoJ can make a convincing case that Apple is actually a monopoly, given the presence of Samsung and Google in the market. Jason Snell, six colorsBecause the law does not provide a solid case against Apple, the DOJ is attempting to redefine the meaning of words to allow its case. This alone should be sufficient evidence that the complaint is a political, not a criminal, decision. The case will fail before a judge and jury, and Apple's response indicates it plans to fight.Renowned former journalist Walt Mossberg had this to say on Threads:https://www.threads.net/@mossbergwalt/post/C41RaBuvrC0And Steven Sinofsky - his article is below - gives a damning appraisal of the DOJs chances.His first day X post is a great overview from somebody who - at Microsoft - has been down this path with the DOJ. Click the graphic for the full thread.https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1770878948421059035?s=61&t=vSSPDgMsv3aFc2ctR_yOwwApple's multibillion-dollar investment in building a global software distribution platform benefits its shareholders. But it also benefits users, even Android users. Who in their right mind would have thought Eric Schmidt would have focused on mobile as much had Apple not started the mobile revolution in 2007?The intense competition for users (Android's many varieties have about 80% global market share) drives innovation on all sides.The essence of the DOJ case is that Apple should be forced to be as bad as Android, or there will be no equality. The essay By Kurt Vonnegut that Daring Fireball ‘typeset'—‘HARRISON BERGERON'—is therefore entirely appropriate—and hilarious, too. It's the first Essay of the Week. See below.This DOJ complaint is not for “the people.” It is for the DOJ and the FTC, who are increasingly attempting to hold back innovation, especially when the innovator is better than the competition. This makes it increasingly irrelevant as accelerated competition challenges all incumbents.OpenAI and its peers (now several) are a great example, seemingly driving two of the slower movers - Apple and Google - to partner on AI in the next version of iOS.Well, there you have it. Shame on the DOJ for filing this amateur complaint. And if we buy the DOJ case or fail to oppose it, Shame on us. ContentsEditorial: Lawmakers Ignoring the LawEssays of the Week‘HARRISON BERGERON' ★ (Fiction) United States v. Apple (Complaint) Apple slams DOJ case as misguided attempt to turn iPhone into Android The Department of Justice comes for Apple A few thoughts on the DOJ's antitrust case against Apple Two Roads Diverged: The Splitting of Venture CapitalVideo of the WeekThe Odds of Raising a Series A, The Latest in Venture Valuations, The AI Premium and More! - Jason LemkinAI of the WeekNvidia's Accelerating AI Strategy. RTZ Apple Is in Talks to Let Google Gemini Power iPhone AI Features How to win at Vertical AI After raising $1.3B, Inflection is eaten alive by its biggest investor, Microsoft Here's how Microsoft is providing a ‘good outcome' for Inflection AI VCs, as Reid Hoffman promised Stability AI CEO resigns because you're ‘not going to beat centralized AI with more centralized AI' Saudi Arabia Announces New $40B AI Fund AI is changing writingNews Of the WeekVC Funds Drawing Down More Capital Truth Social is going public Reddit prices IPO at $34 per share, the top of the rangeStartup of the WeekNeuralink video shows patient using brain implant to play chess on laptopX of the WeekAlways good to know you can be fired from Deepmind for being an a*****e, abandon your $$ startup, and still get hired as a Microsoft VP! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thatwastheweek.com/subscribe

Check out episode 7 of the Alternative Allocations podcast series, focusing on evaluating and allocating alternatives with my guest Jackie Klaber. Jackie and I discuss a range of topics including communicating to clients, the role and use of alternatives, product evolution, and allocating to alternatives in today's market environment.  Jackie C. Klaber is a Managing Director and Head of Alternative Investments at Rockefeller Capital Management. She is a member of the firm's Management Committee and Chair of the Manager Approval Committee. Jackie is responsible for sourcing and structuring differentiated alternative investment opportunities for the firm's clients. Jackie previously worked at Goldman Sachs & Co. in the Alternative Investments & Manager Selection division, where she was responsible for sourcing and diligencing a range of alternative investments over time, including in hedge funds, private equity, and credit. Jackie also served as a Business Unit Manager and as a Member of the Data Science Committee. From 2012-2014, Jackie worked at Citigroup with the management team of the Investment Banking division. Prior to these roles, she graduated from Yale Law School / Yale School of Management, where she completed a J.D./M.B.A. and served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal. She has experience at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Covington & Burling LLP, and the Yale Investments Office. Jackie received a bachelor's degree from Yale College and a master's degree from Columbia University. She is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the Brookings Council as well as a Term Member at the Council on Foreign Relations. She serves on the Board of the Yale Law School Fund and of the Seedlings Foundation. Rockefeller Capital Management Jackie (Carter) Klaber | LinkedIn Alternatives by Franklin Templeton Tony Davidow, CIMA® | LinkedIn  

According to the non-profit Mapping Police Violence, since 2013 when experts first starting tracking police shootings, last year was the deadliest year on record with 1,176 law enforcement gun deaths, or more than three people per day and nearly 100 per month.  In 2022 Blacks were three three times more likely to be killed by police than Whites.  However in, for example, MPLS and Chicago, Black shooting deaths were respectively 28 and 25 times more likely than White.   In her recently published book by Viking Press, Prof. Schwartz explains how the corruption of the 4th amendment and Civil Rights law, the creation of the legal fiction “qualified immunity” and other reasons make it nearly impossible to police the police.  During this 38-minute interview, Prof. Schwartz begins by discussing the case of Ornee Norris. She in turn explains the courts' undermining of 4th amendment's protection from unreasonable searches, civil rights protections, specifically section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Courts 1967 creation of, in Pierson v. Ray, of qualified immunity, discusses the case of systematic violence by Vellejo, CA, police, the failure by governments to learn from these cases, efforts by states to pass laws ending qualified immunity, notes the value of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and finally comments on the issue of the militarization of the police. Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy.  She was a recipient of UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015 and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Beyond Shielded, her recent scholarship has been published in the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and elsewhere. She has also written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Boston Review, and Politico, and has appeared on NPR's Fresh Air, CBS Sunday Morning, PBS NewsHour, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, and elsewhere. Professor Schwartz is also co-author with Stephen Yeazell and Maureen Carroll of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (11th Edition). Professor Schwartz was graduated from Brown University and Yale Law School. She clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.   This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (09/27/2023): 3:05pm- Philadelphia Municipal Judge Wendy Pew dismissed all charges against former Philadelphia police officer Mark Dial who was accused of shooting and killing Eddie Irizarry during a traffic stop last month. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner announced he will appeal the decision. In the aftermath of the decision, the city saw widespread looting in Center City, the Northeast, and West Philadelphia—targeting stores like Foot Locker, Lululemon, Apple, and Fine Wine & Good Spirits. According to a report from The Philadelphia Inquirer, police arrested more than twenty people. You can read more here: https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/center-city-police-teens-stealing-apple-store-20230926.html 3:30pm- In response to the wide-spread looting in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, a clip of far-left Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has gone viral. In the 15-second video, Ocasio Cortez shamefully excuses looting and theft—arguing that people “just want to feed their families.” 3:45pm- While speaking with Bill Maher, Democrat political strategist James Carville accused the far-left of being “habitually, the most stupid people.” Maher expanded on the thought explaining that in 2023, preventing hurt feelings is more important than protecting freedom of speech. 3:55pm- During a press conference reacting to wide-spread looting throughout Philadelphia on Tuesday night, Interim Police Commissioner John Stanford said: “It's disgusting. We made arrests and we're going to continue to make arrests.” 4:05pm- Matt Lamb—Associate Editor at The College Fix—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article, “Brown University Celebrates A Cop Killer.” Lamb writes, “Brown University will honor cop murderer [Mumia] Abu-Jamal (real name Wesley Cook) with a special exhibit highlighting his life and how it fits into concerns about ‘mass incarceration.'” You can read the full article: https://www.thecollegefix.com/brown-university-to-honor-cop-killer-with-three-day-celebration/ 4:20pm- CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller reacted to Tuesday night looting in Philadelphia, explaining that theft is “going up in cities where you have these policies and people realize this is just like shopping without money” Will cities start to crack down on retail theft? 4:30pm- According to a disturbing Bloomberg report, the CIA is building an artificial intelligence tool that will be able to gather and meticulously sort through public information. Citizens will not be able to utilize the tool. You can read the report here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-26/cia-builds-its-own-artificial-intelligence-tool-in-rivalry-with-china?leadSource=uverify%20wall 4:40pm- Robert Bork Jr.—President of the Antitrust Education Project & President of the Bork Communication Group—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest editorial on RealClearPolitics, “Will Khan Break Amazon—Or Will Her Lawsuit Break Her?” On Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission announced they have filed an antitrust suit against Amazon, alleging that the online retailer is a monopoly and harms consumers by artificially inflating prices. Bork notes that the FTC Chairwoman made her name by criticizing Amazon in the Yale Law Journal several years ago. Bork also explains that it will be difficult for the FTC to prove that Amazon is hurting consumers when their prices are typically 15% less than their competitors. You can read Bork's full article here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/09/23/will_khan_break_amazon__or_will_her_lawsuit_break_her_149798.html 5:05pm- The Rich Zeoli Show closes in on 2 million podcast downloads since moving to afternoons—we are, evidently, huge in Somalia and Ethiopia! 5:10pm- Philadelphia Municipal Judge Wendy Pew dismissed all charges against former Philadelphia police officer Mark Dial who was accused of shooting and killing Eddie Irizarry during a traffic stop last month. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner announced he will appeal the decision. In the aftermath of the decision, the city saw widespread looting in Center City, the Northeast, and West Philadelphia—targeting stores like Foot Locker, Lululemon, Apple, and Fine Wine & Good Spirits. According to a report from The Philadelphia Inquirer, police arrested more than twenty people. You can read more here: https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/center-city-police-teens-stealing-apple-store-20230926.html 5:30pm- On X, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) revealed that he has “obtained two bank wires revealing Hunter Biden received payments originating from Beijing in 2019 when Joe Biden was running for President. Joe Biden's Delaware home is listed as the beneficiary address for both money wires from China.” You can read Comer's full statement here: https://twitter.com/RepJamesComer/status/1706777879290290624 5:40pm- Rich destroys appetites by sharing a horrifying image of “Meatball”—Philadelphia's latest viral sensation—with Matt and Henry. 5:50pm- While speaking from the House floor, Rep. Chip Roy (R-X) addressed the seemingly imminent government shutdown. He stated: “My colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about shutdown— yet they are the masters of shutdown. They shut down and brought to a halt the great American economy resulting in exactly what you're experiencing right now…in terms of inflation, in terms of inability to afford homes, inability to afford gasoline, inability to afford power. Those are the mandates that the American people are concerned about. Those are the unfunded mandates that are killing their way of life right now at home.” 6:05pm- Philadelphia Municipal Judge Wendy Pew dismissed all charges against former Philadelphia police officer Mark Dial who was accused of shooting and killing Eddie Irizarry during a traffic stop last month. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner announced he will appeal the decision. In the aftermath of the decision, the city saw widespread looting in Center City, the Northeast, and West Philadelphia—targeting stores like Foot Locker, Lululemon, Apple, and Fine Wine & Good Spirits. According to a report from The Philadelphia Inquirer, police arrested more than twenty people. You can read more here: https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/center-city-police-teens-stealing-apple-store-20230926.html 6:10pm- According to reports, Target will close nine stores nationally in response to unmitigated thefts in major cities which have cost the retail store an estimated $700 million. 6:15pm- In response to the wide-spread looting in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, a clip of far-left Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has gone viral. In the 15-second video, Ocasio Cortez shamefully excuses looting and theft—arguing that people “just want to feed their families.” 6:30pm- While speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) declared the proposed Senate continuing resolution “dead-on-arrival” if it ever makes it to the House of Representatives. 6:35pm- While speaking with Bill Maher, Democrat political strategist James Carville accused the far-left of being “habitually, the most stupid people.” Maher expanded on the thought explaining that in 2023, preventing hurt feelings is more important than protecting freedom of speech. 6:40pm- While appearing on MSNBC with Joy Reid, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) addressed Republican criticisms of his Senate wardrobe, saying that he wouldn't care if Ted Cruz, for example, dressed like Spider-Man.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: Matt Lamb—Associate Editor at The College Fix—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article, “Brown University Celebrates A Cop Killer.” Lamb writes, “Brown University will honor cop murderer [Mumia] Abu-Jamal (real name Wesley Cook) with a special exhibit highlighting his life and how it fits into concerns about ‘mass incarceration.'” You can read the full article: https://www.thecollegefix.com/brown-university-to-honor-cop-killer-with-three-day-celebration/ CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller reacted to Tuesday night looting in Philadelphia, explaining that theft is “going up in cities where you have these policies and people realize this is just like shopping without money” Will cities start to crack down on retail theft? According to a disturbing Bloomberg report, the CIA is building an artificial intelligence tool that will be able to gather and meticulously sort through public information. Citizens will not be able to utilize the tool. You can read the report here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-26/cia-builds-its-own-artificial-intelligence-tool-in-rivalry-with-china?leadSource=uverify%20wall Robert Bork Jr.—President of the Antitrust Education Project & President of the Bork Communication Group—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest editorial on RealClearPolitics, “Will Khan Break Amazon—Or Will Her Lawsuit Break Her?” On Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission announced they have filed an antitrust suit against Amazon, alleging that the online retailer is a monopoly and harms consumers by artificially inflating prices. Bork notes that the FTC Chairwoman made her name by criticizing Amazon in the Yale Law Journal several years ago. Bork also explains that it will be difficult for the FTC to prove that Amazon is hurting consumers when their prices are typically 15% less than their competitors. You can read Bork's full article here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/09/23/will_khan_break_amazon__or_will_her_lawsuit_break_her_149798.html

Since 1969, the police have been legally allowed to lie to you. Yes, you. About anything. Anywhere and everywhere. And they do. All the time. One of their favorite tricks is to use the “false evidence ploy” to convince you to take a lesser guilty plea instead of risking a trial. Despite millions of guilty pleas entered in this country based on deception and misinformation, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is okay for cops to be dirty liars. Reb teaches you when and how to shut your mouth as she runs through Frazier v. Cupp, Miranda v. Arizona, the "Interrogation Bible" used to train cops in the US, and the rights everyone should know how to exercise. WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/0g20SUTnSRQ Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and @Rebmasel on TikTok :) *** SOURCES CITED: "FROM FALSE EVIDENCE PLOY TO FALSE GUILTY PLEA: AN UNJUSTIFIED PATH TO SECURING CONVICTIONS" by Katie Wynbrandt, Yale Law Journal (2016) "PUBLIC TRUST AND POLICE DECEPTION" by Julia Simon-Kerr, Northeastern University Law Review (2019) Time Magazine Article: "Law Enforcement Experts on Why Police Shouldn't be Allowed to Lie to Suspects," by Saul Kassin (Dec. 16, 2022) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Insular Cases are SCOTUS cases regarding rights of people in U.S. territories. They're considered U.S. citizens from birth, but they don't have the same constitutional rights or representation as citizens who live in one of the 50 states. Research: Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/243/ Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Sanford Ballard Dole". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 Jun. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sanford-Ballard-Dole. Accessed 31 July 2023. Carstensen, Vernon. “The Constitutional and Territorial Expansion.” https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND88053401/pdf DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/1/ Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/222/ Dooley v. United States, 183 U.S. 151 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/183/151/ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/244/ Erman, Sam. “Meanings of Citizenship in the U.S. Empire: Puerto Rico, Isabel Gonzalez, and the Supreme Court, 1898 to 1905.” Journal of American Ethnic History Summer 2008 Volume 27, Number 4. Fiol-Matta, Lía. “Future of the Insular Cases.” Latino Justice. https://www.latinojustice.org/en/latinojusticeopina/future-insular-cases Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/183/176/ Gelpí, Gustavo A. “The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico, Hawai‘i, and the Philippines.” The Federal Lawyer | March/April 2011. Gershon, Livia. “The Myth of Manifest Destiny.” JSTOR Daily. 5/5/2021. https://daily.jstor.org/the-myth-of-manifest-destiny/ Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/221/ Howe, Amy. “Court declines to take up petition seeking to overturn Insular Cases.” SCOTUS Blog. 10/17/2022. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/court-declines-to-take-up-petition-seeking-to-overturn-insular-cases/ Huus v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/392/ National Archives. “Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803).” https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/louisiana-purchase-treaty#no-1 Perez, Lisa Maria. “Citizenship Denied: The ‘Insular Cases' and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Virginia Law Review , Jun., 2008, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Jun., 2008). https://www.jstor.org/stable/25470577 Ponsa-Kraus, Christina. “The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.” Yale Law Journal. Vol. 131, No. 8. June 2022. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-insular-cases-run-amok Sparrow, Bartholomew H. "Insular Cases." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by David S. Tanenhaus, vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 476-481. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3241200487/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=91c70605. Accessed 25 July 2023. Supreme Court of the United States. “UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO.” Argued November 9, 2021—Decided April 21, 2022. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf Topol, Sarah A., and Glenna Gordon. "The America That Americans Forget." The New York Times Magazine, 9 July 2023, p. 22(L). Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A756508304/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=9e9434c8. Accessed 25 July 2023. Torruella, Juan R. “Ruling America's Colonies: The Insular Cases” Yale Law & Policy Review. 32:57. 2013. Torruella, Juan R. “The Insular Cases: The Establishment of a Regime of Political Apartheid.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law. Winter 2007. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jil/vol29/iss2/1/ S. Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs. “Definitions of Insular Area Political Organizations.” https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/politicatypes S. State Department Office of the Historian. “Louisiana Purchase, 1803 .” https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/louisiana-purchase. Wallach, Sherry Levin. “The Insular Cases Must Be Overturned.” Bloomberg Law. 8/3/2022. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-insular-cases-must-be-overturned Yale Law School. “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848.” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.comThis episode is like a matter-anti matter explosion. Regina Spektor is one of the deepest and most thoughtful humans on the planet, and one of the most talented musicians to boot. Her music can bring you to tears with its celebration of life and emotion. She and I discuss one of the lowest points for the Supreme Court in recent memory, Hawaii v. Trump, where the Supreme Court upheld Trump's severe restrictions on countries that were overwhelmingly Muslim. Paid subscribers on nealkatyal.substack.com will have access to the full written materials around the decision (including a short summary) along with some bonus material from the interview with Regina.On December 7, 2015 (note the date), candidate Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” 5 days into his Administration, he implemented it, leading to mass protests at airports.That travel ban got struck down by the Courts. Trump created a new one. That one got struck down by courts. Trump created another one. And that third one is the one that went to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld the third ban. Chief Justice Roberts found that the ban was constitutional, arguing that it neither exceeded the executive power of the Presidency nor violated the First Amendment. Justice Breyer issued a dissent examining the Proclamation's system of waivers and exemptions. In her more dissent, Justice Sotomayor rebuffed Roberts' argument, connecting then-candidate Trump's Islamophobic rhetoric to the ensuing travel ban and suggesting parallels to the Japanese internment cases. While the ban only lasted for four years, its impact was enormous; families were separated, dreams were crushed, and perhaps most disturbingly, the Court set a dangerous legal precedent. To me, as I wrote about in Yale Law Journal, it was a resurrection of the Korematsu case, where the Court upheld the Japanese American internment on grounds of national security. (Please keep in mind, I argued the Hawaii case in the Supreme Court and the lower courts, and have strong feelings, and some good stories I share here.). I have always felt the Supreme Court got Korematsu wrong, but part of the blame rests with the Solicitor General at the time, who lied to the Supreme Court.Regina, herself a refugee, is the perfect guest to discuss the human impact of a decision like Trump v Hawaii. I can't wait for you to listen in, for what she says about the promise of America is so moving.Paid subscribers will have access to all the written materials and summary of the decision, along with a bonus episode discussing Regina's tips for overcoming stage fright. Sign up at nealkatyal.substack.com

Join America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy with a brilliant mind and a principled leader — John Yoo, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California–Berkeley School of Law, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Key topics covered with John Yoo include: — Reviewing the Supreme Court's significant rulings on the vital issues impacting Americans and the future of the Republic. — The Supreme Court's three ringing blows for liberty. — What comes next for the Supreme Court? "Just before this Fourth of July weekend, the United States Supreme Court struck three ringing blows for American liberty. It upheld freedom of speech; it affirmed that the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the president; and it forbade racial discrimination by the government. Americans should applaud these decisions and a constitutional order that produced them." — John Yoo and Robert Delahunty | FoxNews.com (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-three-ringing-blows-liberty) Bio | John Yoo Constitutional scholar, author and former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and federal appeals Judge Laurence Silberman John Yoo is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California–Berkeley School of Law, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent book is Defender in Chief: Donald Trump's Fight for Presidential Power (St. Martin's 2020). Yoo has served in all three branches of government. He was an official in the US Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism issues after the September 11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the US Senate Judiciary Committee under its chairman, Orrin Hatch of Utah. And he has been a law clerk for Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and US Court of Appeals judge Laurence Silberman. He held the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Trento in Italy, and he has also been a visiting professor at Keio Law School in Japan, Seoul National University in Korea, Chapman Law School, the University of Chicago, and the Free University of Amsterdam. Professor Yoo also has received the Paul M. Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching from the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. Yoo is the author of a number of books: Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons Change the Rules for War(2017); Point of Attack (2014); Taming Globalization (2012); Crisis and Command (2010); War by Other Means (2016); and The Powers of War and Peace (2005). He has co-edited three other books, most recently Liberty's Nemesis: The Unchecked Expansion of the State (2016) (with Dean Reuter). Professor Yoo received his B.A., summa cum laude, in American history from Harvard University. Between college and law school, he worked as a newspaper reporter in Washington, D.C. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an articles editor of the Yale Law Journal. John Yoo co-hosts the Pacific Century podcast with Michael Auslin, broadly addressing developments in China and Asia. They discuss the latest politics, economics, law, and cultural news, with a focus on US policy in the region. He also co-hosts LawTalk with Richard Epstein and Troy Senik, discussing the latest developments in law and politics. Fox News | Striking down affirmative action is John Roberts' 'greatest opinion': John Yoo (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330362874112) The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court By John Yoo and Roberty J. Delahunty (https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Supreme-Guides/dp/1684513553) americasrt.com (https://americasrt.com/) https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 Twitter: @JohnYooFanPage @ileaderssummit @AmericasRT @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio program - a strategic initiative of International Leaders Summit, focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. Tune into America's Roundtable Radio program from Washington, DC via live streaming on Saturday mornings via 65 radio stations at 7:30 A.M. (ET) on Lanser Broadcasting Corporation covering the Michigan and the Midwest market, and at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk Mississippi — SuperTalk.FM reaching listeners in every county within the State of Mississippi, and neighboring states in the South including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Listen to America's Roundtable on digital platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Google and other key online platforms. Listen live, Saturdays at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk | https://www.supertalk.fm

Winning a 2003 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case expanded a gay lawyer's Supreme Court practice, he says, and looking back, it's his favorite case. Because Paul M. Smith was the editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, clerked for then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. and handled various Supreme Court cases—including for paying clients—many thought that it made sense for the Washington, D.C., lawyer to argue Lawrence v. Texas, which led to a 2003 landmark opinion that struck down state laws criminalizing sexual conduct between consenting adults of the same gender.

Winning a 2003 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case expanded a gay lawyer's Supreme Court practice, he says, and looking back, it's his favorite case. Because Paul M. Smith was the editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, clerked for then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. and handled various Supreme Court cases—including for paying clients—many thought that it made sense for the Washington, D.C., lawyer to argue Lawrence v. Texas, which led to a 2003 landmark opinion that struck down state laws criminalizing sexual conduct between consenting adults of the same gender.

Winning a 2003 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case expanded a gay lawyer's Supreme Court practice, he says, and looking back, it's his favorite case. Because Paul M. Smith was the editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, clerked for then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. and handled various Supreme Court cases—including for paying clients—many thought that it made sense for the Washington, D.C., lawyer to argue Lawrence v. Texas, which led to a 2003 landmark opinion that struck down state laws criminalizing sexual conduct between consenting adults of the same gender.

Deepa Varadarajan lives in Atlanta with her husband and two children. She is a legal academic and a graduate of Yale Law School. She grew up in Texas and received her BA from the University of Texas at Austin. Her short fiction has appeared in The Georgia Review and Colorado Review, and her legal scholarship has appeared in The Yale Law Journal and many other publications. Late Bloomers is her first novel. In our second segment we welcome Christina Dodd Readers become writers, and Christina Dodd has always been a reader. She reads everything, but because she loves humor, she likes romance best. A woman wants things like world peace, a clean house, and a deep and meaningful relationship based on mutual understanding and love. A man wants things like a Craftsman router with attachments, undisputed control of the TV remote, and a red Corvette which will miraculously make his bald spot disappear. So when Christina's first daughter was born, she told her husband she was going to quit work and write a book. It was a good time to start a new career, because how much trouble could one little infant be? Ha! It took ten years, two children and three completed manuscripts before her first novel, CANDLE IN THE WINDOW, was published. In the thirty-two years since, her novels have been translated into 25 languages, won Romance Writers of America's prestigious Golden Heart and RITA Awards and been called the year's best by Library Journal and Booklist. Christina Dodd herself has been a clue in the Los Angeles Times crossword puzzle (11/18/05, # 13 Down: Romance Novelist named Christina.) Her mother was thrilled! With more than 15 million of her books in print, Booklist praises her, “brilliantly etched characters, polished writing, and unexpected flashes of sharp humor that are pure Dodd.”

This week Jen's guest is Professor Steve Vladeck, author of the sensational new book: The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.  The Shadow Docket is a must-read book, not just for court-watchers and garden-variety nerds, but also for anyone and everyone who wants to sound smarter on Twitter. Okay, maybe that's a low bar. But, you get the drift. Don't just trust me. Publisher's Weekly said “This insightful and accessible account raises an important alarm.” Plus, Patrick Radden Keefe, author of Purdue the Pharma book, Empire of Pain praised Steve for using “elegant, accessible prose” to “expose[] the degree to which significant battles, from abortion to immigration, are being adjudicated behind closed doors, in unseen, unsigned, unexplained decisions.”  Steve Vladeck is professor at the University of Texas, at Austin School of Law where he holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts. He is a nationally recognized expert on the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice. But, anyone can claim to be an expert. On paper. Steve is the real deal. Not just in the classroom and prestigious academic journals (like the Harvard Law Review and Yale Law Journal) but also in courtrooms. He has argued over a dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Texas Supreme Court, and various lower federal civilian and military courts. But most importantly, he's a really nice person.  Contact Booked Up: You can email Jen & the Booked Up team at: BOOKEDUP@POLITICON.COM or by writing to:  BOOKED UP  P.O. BOX 147 NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 Get More from Steve Vladeck Twitter | Website | Author of THE SHADOW DOCKET Get More from Jen Taub: Twitter | Follow the Money Substack | Author of BIG DIRTY MONEY 

McConnell Center welcomes Professor Jeffery Pojanowski to discuss Constitutional Interpretation and the Classical Legal Tradition. Jeff Pojanowski joined the faculty and community of Notre Dame Law School in 2010 and was promoted to full professor in 2015. He teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, jurisprudence, legal interpretation, and torts. He has published work in the Georgetown Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal, among other publications. He serves as co-editor of The American Journal of Jurisprudence. Pojanowski earned his A.B. in Public Policy with highest honors from Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2004, where he was Articles Co-Chair for the Harvard Law Review. After law school, he served as a law clerk to then-Judge John Roberts on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then to Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States. He then practiced law with Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., where he specialized in appellate litigation and administrative-law matters. Important Links More about Jeff Pojanowski Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. Views expressed in this show are those of the participants and not necessarily those of the McConnell Center.  

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWho is the leading public intellectual of the Supreme Court bar? Neal Katyal—Hogan Lovells partner, Georgetown Law professor, and former Acting Solicitor General—would have a very strong claim to the title.Many SCOTUS advocates focus on winning high-court cases for their clients, but Neal aspires to more: he contributes to our national discourse. His scholarship has been published in top law reviews, including the Harvard Law Review and Yale Law Journal. He writes op-eds for leading newspapers, including the New York Times and Washington Post. He authored a Times bestseller, Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump. He makes frequent appearances on television and radio as a legal-affairs commentator. He comments on the news of the day to his more than 800,000 Twitter followers. And later this year, he's coming to Substack—exciting news that he shared in my recent podcast interview of him.I've known Neal for a long time, and I'd been wanting to have him on the show for a while. Now turned out to be a great time, for two reasons. First, just last week, he made his 50th oral argument before the Supreme Court—a major milestone that few SCOTUS advocates can claim. Second, May is Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Heritage Month, and Neal has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other AAPI lawyer—or, for that matter, any other lawyer of color. Congratulations to Neal on his 50th SCOTUS argument, and thanks to him for taking the time to join me.Show Notes:* Neal Katyal bio, Hogan Lovells US LLP* Neal K. Katyal bio, Georgetown Law* Neal Kumar Katyal, Oyez* Neal K. Katyal, Chambers and Partners* Hogan Lovells Partner Neal Katyal Celebrates 50th Supreme Court Oral Argument, National Law JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, we are honored to be joined by friend of the show, Congressman David Schweikert of Arizona's First Congressional District. Later in the show, we check in with Ilan Wurman, who is working on a critical lawsuit over “The Zone,” a homeless encampment in downtown Phoenix. -David Schweikert is serving his fifth term in the United States Congress.  He holds a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, and serves as the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. Prior to his service on the Ways and Means Committee, David served on the House Committee on Financial Services.David also sits on the bicameral Joint Economic Committee, Co-Chairs the Valley Fever Task force with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and is the Republican Co-Chair of both the Blockchain Caucus, the Tunisia Caucus and the Caucus on Access to Capital and Credit.Among his legislative accomplishments, David was instrumental in authoring and passing the JOBS ACT into law. The bill was signed by the President in April 2012. Having previously served as Chairman of the EPA Oversight Subcommittee on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; David championed key reforms such as the Secret Science Reform Act, which has passed the House of Representatives.A national leader on tribal policy, David draws on a unique background working with Arizona's tribal communities on important priorities.   He is always eager to take on a technical challenge.As a strong advocate for efficiencies in the 21st Century economy, David collaborates with entrepreneurs and innovators in Arizona and around the world on ways to increase trade and drive economic growth.  David is the co-chair of the Blockchain Caucus, and has championed technological innovations as the solution to the problems of over-burdensome government regulations.-Ilan Wurman is an associate professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where he teaches administrative law and constitutional law. He writes primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment, administrative law, separation of powers, and constitutionalism. His academic writing has appeared or is forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the Duke Law Journal, the Minnesota Law Review, and the Texas Law Review among other journals. He is also the author of A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism (Cambridge 2017), and The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambridge 2020).-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

David Lat joins Robert to discuss the student protest at Stanford Law School over a recent visit by Fed Soc invitee U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan. Recordings and documents referenced during the episode:Recording of the protest and Judge Duncan's reactionStanford Law Dean Martinez's letterJudge Duncan's op-ed in the WSJDEI Dean Steinbach's op-ed in the WSJUC Berkley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky on MSNBC's Morning JoeCheck out David's substack, Original Jurisdiction, and his podcast by the same name. Follow David on Twitter and LinkedIn. David Lat is a lawyer turned writer. Prior to launching Original Jurisdiction, David founded Above the Law, one of the nation's most widely read legal news websites, and Underneath Their Robes, a popular blog about federal judges that he wrote under a pseudonym. He is also the author of a novel set in the world of the federal courts, Supreme Ambitions. Before entering the media world, David had a prolific legal career as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell in New York; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

Jeff and Lason are joined by Scott Hershovitz, author of Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with Kids. We discuss philosophy and how it applies to everyday life, his experience working for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and his love for the Atlanta Braves. ====================================================================================================================== Scott Hershovitz is the Thomas G. and Mabel Long Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan. He directs the University's Law and Ethics Program. And he co-edits Legal Theory.Hershovitz writes about law and philosophy. His academic work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal, and Ethics, among other places. In addition, he writes occasional essays about philosophy for the New York Times. Hershovitz has two books in progress. The first — Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with Kids — will be published by Penguin Press in 2022. The second — Law is a Moral Practice — will be published by Harvard University Press in 2023. Before joining the Michigan faculty, Hershovitz served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court and an attorney-advisor on the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. Hershovitz earned a J.D. at the Yale Law School, a D.Phil. at the University of Oxford (where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar), and a M.A. and A.B. at the University of Georgia. He lives in Ann Arbor with his wife, Julie; his kids, Rex and Hank; and his dog, Bailey. He loves baseball, barbecue, and tacos.

Join America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) Radio co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy with John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush. The conversation is focused on the following: — Priorities for Congress — Review of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee's investigations — The role of Congress in addressing the classified document discoveries — The two forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases focusing on Section 230 and the future of tech and social media companies — The crisis on the U.S. Southern Border John Yoo is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California–Berkeley School of Law, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent book is Defender in Chief: Donald Trump's Fight for Presidential Power (St. Martin's 2020). Yoo has served in all three branches of government. He was an official in the US Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism issues after the September 11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the US Senate Judiciary Committee under its chairman, Orrin Hatch of Utah. And he has been a law clerk for Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and US Court of Appeals judge Laurence Silberman. He held the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Trento in Italy, and he has also been a visiting professor at Keio Law School in Japan, Seoul National University in Korea, Chapman Law School, the University of Chicago, and the Free University of Amsterdam. Professor Yoo also has received the Paul M. Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching from the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. Yoo is the author of a number of books: Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons Change the Rules for War(2017); Point of Attack (2014); Taming Globalization (2012); Crisis and Command (2010); War by Other Means (2016); and The Powers of War and Peace (2005). He has co-edited three other books, most recently Liberty's Nemesis: The Unchecked Expansion of the State (2016) (with Dean Reuter). Professor Yoo received his B.A., summa cum laude, in American history from Harvard University. Between college and law school, he worked as a newspaper reporter in Washington, D.C. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an articles editor of the Yale Law Journal. americasrt.com (https://americasrt.com/) https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 Twitter: @ileaderssummit @AmericasRT @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio program - a strategic initiative of International Leaders Summit, focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. Tune into America's Roundtable Radio program from Washington, DC via live streaming on Saturday mornings via 65 radio stations at 7:30 A.M. (ET) on Lanser Broadcasting Corporation covering the Michigan and the Midwest market, and at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk Mississippi — SuperTalk.FM reaching listeners in every county within the State of Mississippi, and neighboring states in the South including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Listen to America's Roundtable on digital platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Google and other key online platforms. Listen live, Saturdays at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk | https://www.supertalk.fm

lovethylawyer.comA transcript of this podcast is available at lovethylawyer.com.  Megan Wachspress is a Staff Attorney with the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, where she utilizes a combination of litigation and policy advocacy strategies to accelerate the closure and prevent the construction of coal- and gas-fired power plants. She has appeared on behalf of the Club in numerous state utility commission proceedings including as lead counsel in administrative trial proceedings as well as representing the Club and its members in federal and state litigation as well as EPA notice-and-comment proceedings. Prior to joining the Sierra Club, Megan represented employees, unions, and non-profit organizations at a boutique public interest firm in San Francisco. As a PhD student Megan taught numerous courses in the Legal Studies Department as well as in San Quentin Prison as part of what is now Mount Tamalpais College. Megan is the author or co-author of articles published in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Yale Law Journal, and International Journal of Law in Context, and clerked with Justice Goodwin Liu of the California Supreme Court and Judge William Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She currently serves on the boards of the Homeless Action Center of Alameda County and the Bay Area Lawyers' Chapter of the American Constitution Society.J.D. Yale Law SchoolPh.D University of California, BerkeleyM.Phil University of CambridgeBA/BS University of ChicagoPauli Murrayhttps://www.paulimurraycenter.com/  Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.comhttps://www.lovethylawyer.com/ 510.582.9090  Musical theme by Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, Maui Technical support: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, OaklandAudiograms & Transcripts: Paul Roberts    We'd love to hear from you.  Send me an email at louis@lovethylawyer.com. Please subscribe and listen. Then tell us who you want to hear and what areas of interest you'd like us to cover.  Please rate us and review us on Apple Podcasts.     Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.comhttps://www.lovethylawyer.com/510.582.9090Music: Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, MauiTech: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, OaklandAudiograms: Paul Roberts louis@lovethylawyer.com

Shermer and Bernstein discuss: the SCOTUS case on affirmative action and race preferences at Harvard and elsewhere • Elizabeth Warren (Cherokee ancestry — Bureau of Indian Affairs rejects?) • Tiger Woods: Cablinasian (European, African, Thai, Chinese ancestry) • George Zimmerman (Hispanic, half Hispanic, mixed-race, White Hispanic, White, or…?) • Rachel Dolezal (NAACP official, adopted an African American identity, though has none) • Kamala Harris (child of an Indian immigrant mother, father of mixed-African and European heritage from Jamaica) • BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) • ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) • the biology and legality of race • the one-drop rule of race classification • the rise of modern racial classification • Hispanic, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Armenian, Cajun, South Asian, Arab, and Iranian categories • American Indians/Native Americans • race classification and reparations • How can we achieve a race-blind society? David E. Bernstein holds a University Professorship chair at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, where he has been teaching since 1995. He has also been a visiting professor at the University of Michigan, Georgetown University, William and Mary, Brooklyn Law School, and the University of Turin. Known as a fearless contrarian, Professor Bernstein often challenges the conventional wisdom with prodigious research and sharp, original analysis. His book Rehabilitating Lochner was praised across the political spectrum as “intellectual history in its highest form,” a “fresh perspective and a cogent analysis,” “delightful and informative,” “sharp and iconoclastic,” “well-written and destined to be influential,” and “a terrific work of historical revisionism.” Professor Bernstein blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy (the leading law professor blog) and at Instapundit.com. Professor Bernstein is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and a John M. Olin Fellow in Law, Economics, and Public Policy. Professor Bernstein is married and has three children of mixed Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and Spanish-Jewish origin. He prefers not to classify them.

When large companies face massive mass tort litigation, one way they can survive is to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganize.  3M recently put its Aearo Technologies subsidiary into bankruptcy in the face of more than 230,000 claims  that's its defective earplugs caused hearing loss.  When it came to filing bankruptcy 3M said Aearo was solely responsible for the product. But for several years of litigation 3M argued that it, as the parent, was solely responsible, not its various subsidiaries. That was a strategy that was beneficial to the company in multidistrict litigation.Why did 3M suddenly change course? What impact does bankruptcy have on claimants? Could corporations use bankruptcy law to neuter mass tort litigation for all eternity?  And how did the strategy sit with the federal magistrate judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation? Joining me to discuss this incredibly complex litigation is Jennifer M. Hoekstra , a partner with Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer has been involved in all varieties of complex litigation since 2007, focusing on mass torts, drug and device litigation, and others.  She has a J.D. from Tulane, which she earned while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law. She has actively served as trial counsel or an integral member of the trial team in several of the 3M Earplug trials securing nearly $300 million in compensatory damages for military veterans. Jennifer shared her insights on the intersection of complex mass torts and bankruptcy, an intersection that wasn't originally on her roadmap.  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedInP.S. During the podcast I mentioned an article and wanted to share the link. It's called "Bankruptcy Grifters" by Lindsey D. Simon. It was published in the Yale Law Journal.  

Scott Hershovitz is the Thomas G. and Mabel Long Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan. He directs the University's Law and Ethics Program and he co-edits Legal Theory.  Scott writes about law and philosophy. His academic work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal, and Ethics, among other places. In addition, he writes occasional essays about philosophy for the New York Times.  Before joining the Michigan faculty, he  served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court and an attorney-advisor on the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. Eric and Scott discuss his new book, Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy withMy Kids But wait, there's more! The episode is not quite over!! We continue the conversation and you can access this exclusive content right in your podcast player feed. Head over to our Patreon page and pledge to donate just $10 a month. It's that simple and we'll give you good stuff as a thank you! Scott Hershovitz and I Discuss What We Can Learn By Thinking Like a Kid and … His book, Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids Defining philosophy as the art of thinking How kids are natural philosophers and ask interesting questions Learning to think critically about our own ideas Distinguishing between what we think we should do and what we want to do The story of the Ship of Theseus and how we can compare it to our own identity How identity can be used as a tool in how we see ourselves in the world in both a negative and positive way Relativism and how we each get our own truth Epistemic bubbles and echo chambers  What we can learn when we talk to people who think differently than us  How we can look at other people with both objective or participant attitudes, depending on the circumstances Tempering our perspectives when we learn about others' circumstances Scott Hershovitz Links Scott's Website Twitter By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you! If you enjoyed this conversation with Scott Hershovitz check out these other episodes: What We Know But Don't Believe with Steve Hagen Everyday Courage with Ryan HolidaySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Andrew Granato, executive editor and empirical scholarship editor of the Yale Journal on Regulation; John Bowers, empirical scholarship editor of the Yale Law Journal; and Arisa Herman, senior articles editor of the Cornell Law Review, join the Business Scholarship Podcast to discuss the state of empirical legal scholarship and the recently announced Joint Law Review Statement on Data and Code Transparency. This episode is hosted by Andrew Jennings, assistant professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Mea Culpa welcomes, Alan Dershowitz, American lawyer, and author.  He also garnered attention for his involvement in numerous prominent legal cases. Dershowitz went to Yale law school where he was the editor of the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, before becoming a professor at Harvard. He retired in 2013. He has worked with the ACLU for 5 decades. He defended celebrity clients like Claus Von Bulow, televangelist Jim Bakker, and OJ Simpson. In 2011 he became part of the legal team for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. And in 2020 he defended former president Trump during his Senate impeachment hearings. Dershowitz is a frequent commentator on legal issues and court proceedings on just about every news and/or political show in the nation.  He is currently a regular contributor to the Epoch Times. Michael and Alan dig into all of Trump's legal woes. Mea Culpa is coming to Los Angeles for a live event on Tuesday, November 1st.   Michael will be joined by Emmy award-winning comedienne Kathy Griffin, former Deputy Attorney General, and Talking Feds host Harry Litman and former Oath Keepers national spokesman Jason Van Tatenhove. It's an evening you won't forget.   VIP tickets include a signed copy of Michael's new book and a meet and greet with him before the show.  Presale tickets go live on Monday, Oct 10, 2022, at 9 am at The Elray.com

When Sir Roger Tichborne was shipwrecked and lost at sea in 1854, his mother fell into a deep state of mourning, both devastated by the loss of her son and insistent that he was still alive. As much as the rest of her family tried their best to convince her that Roger was not ever coming back, she just refused to stop searching. It was a stance that paid off handsomely then, when her long lost son made his triumphant return to England 12 years later with a plan to reclaim the family estate. It would be a claim that would make it to court and eventually be the longest running trial in English legal history, holding the title for over a hundred years and would light up the Victorian press with scandal, humour and class warfare that would last decades. SOURCES   Annear, Robyn. (2002) The Man Who Lost Himself: The Unbelievable Story of the Tichborne Claimant. Constable & Robinson Ltd. London, UK.   McWilliam, Rohan (2007) The Tichborne Claimant: A Victorian Sensation. Hambledon Continuum, London, UK.   Kinsley, William, J. (1911) The Tichborne Case. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 7 (May, 1911), pp. 563-569.   Saunders News-Letter (1867) From Our Own Correspondent. Monday 14 January 1867, Dublin, Ireland.   Yorkshire Gazette (1867) Arrival of Sir Roger Tichborne Bart. Saturday 5 January 1867. Yorkshire, UK.   London Evening Standard (1867) The Tichborne Baronetcy. Wednesday 23 January 1867. London, UK   London Evening Standard (1872) A Last Appeal From The Claimant. Wednesday 27 March 1872. London, UK   ---------- For almost anything, head over to the podcasts hub at darkhistories.com Support the show by using our link when you sign up to Audible: http://audibletrial.com/darkhistories or visit our Patreon for bonus episodes and Early Access: https://www.patreon.com/darkhistories The Dark Histories books are available to buy here: http://author.to/darkhistories Dark Histories merch is available here: https://bit.ly/3GChjk9 Connect with us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/darkhistoriespodcast Or find us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/darkhistories & Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dark_histories/ Or you can contact us directly via email at contact@darkhistories.com or via voicemail on: (415) 286-5072 or join our Discord community: https://discord.gg/cmGcBFf The Dark Histories Butterfly was drawn by Courtney, who you can find on Instagram @bewildereye Music was recorded by me © Ben Cutmore 2017 Other Outro music was Paul Whiteman & his orchestra with Mildred Bailey - All of me (1931). It's out of copyright now, but if you're interested, that was that.  

In Today's episode of "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Erin Morrow Hawley, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, to discuss the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF's role in crafting the Mississippi legislation in question, the legal battle leading to the Supreme Court, the infamous leak, and the future of the Pro-Life Movement.Erin Morrow Hawley is a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Hawley received her bachelor's degree in Animal Science from Texas A&M University and her law degree from Yale Law School where she served as a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law and on the Yale Law Journal. Hawley is an active member of the Missouri and District of Columbia bars and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and various federal courts of appeals.Learn more about Erin Morrow Hawley's work:https://adflegal.org/biography/erin-morrow-hawleyhttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-is-living-with-josh-and-erin-hawley/id1591145673––––––Follow American Moment across Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-695775Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced by American Moment Studios, and edited by Jared Cummings.Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"Get our Cancelproof RSS – https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/moment-of-truthACast – https://shows.acast.com/moment-of-truthApple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAj Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

As many of you know, at the beginning of May, the United States Supreme Court experienced an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson case currently being adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., and, if it ends up reflecting the Court's decision due this month,  would overturn nearly 50 years of abortion law under the landmark Roe v. Wade case, which ruled that many then-current restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional, and guaranteed nationwide access to abortion through the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Roe, and the subsequent Casey v. Planned Parenthood have paved the way for laws that in many states, allow abortion very late into pregnancy. Abortion is a very tricky topic, and a very sensitive one for people on all sides of the issue. But we feel like we have a duty as citizens to become educated on important matters like this, and our faith must have something to say on issues in which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake.  Elder Oaks recently stated: "On contested issues we seek to moderate and unify." In that spirit, we explored the issue from several angles, starting from a factual perspective — diving into the specifics of what's going on and what the practical stakes are, then moving into what our faith might be asking of us as we seek to create a world that is just and equitable; one that honors both agency and life. I'm sure we weren't perfect as we navigated this territory, but we did the best we could to show respect to the values and humanity that inform people of good faith on either side. This conversation comes in two parts; in the first, we spoke with Sherif Girgis, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, who also clerked for Justice Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as for our friend Thomas B. Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. When we asked Judge Griffith who would be the most qualified voice we could bring on the show, he unhesitatingly recommended Sherif. Sherif earned his J.D. at Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton. Sherif helped us understand the current state of abortion law in the US as well as what it could look like after a decision is made on Dobbs.  After speaking with Sherif, we spoke with Latter-day Saint scholars Justin Collings and Jenet Erickson. Justin Collings is ​​Associate Dean for Faculty and Curriculum at BYU and a Professor at the J. Reuben Clark School of Law at BYU, where he's been since 2013. He is a scholar of constitutional law, comparative constitutional law, and constitutional history, and received his law degree  and his PhD in History both from Yale.Jenet Erickson is an associate professor in the Department of Church History and Doctrine in BYU Religious Education. Her research has focused on maternal and child well-being in the context of work and family life, as well as the distinct contributions of mothers and fathers in children's development. She is a research fellow of both the Wheatley Institution and the Institute for Family Studies and has been a columnist on family issues for the Deseret News since 2013.Justin and Jenet brought this conversation home in terms of what it means for Latter-day Saints. We found them incredibly insightful and empathetic, and helped us see this issue in new ways — we think they'll do the same for you. The conversation with Justin and Jenet led to some really spirit-filled and practical takeaways for Latter-day Saints who want to be thoughtful, engaged, and loving on this issue. We're deeply grateful to them for coming on.

Ryan reads today's daily meditation and talks to Scott Hershovitz about his new book Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with Kids, the common misconceptions about philosophy, how to apply philosophy to actual life, and more.Scott writes about law and philosophy. His academic work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal, and Ethics, among other places. He also writes occasional essays about philosophy for the New York Times. Before joining the Michigan faculty, Hershovitz served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court and an attorney-advisor on the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice.The book follows an agenda set by Scott's two sons, Rex and Hank. He takes us on a journey through classic and contemporary philosophy, powered by questions like, Does Hank have the right to drink soda? When is it okay to swear? And, Does the number six exist? Scott and his boys take on more weighty issues too. They explore punishment, authority, sex, gender, race, the nature of truth and knowledge, and the existence of God. Along the way, they get help from professional philosophers, famous and obscure. And they show that all of us have a lot to learn from listening to kids—and thinking with them.KiwiCo is a subscription service that delivers everything your kids will need to make, create and play. Get 50% off your first month plus FREE shipping on ANY crate line with code STOIC at kiwico.com.Go to shopify.com/stoic, all lowercase, for a FREE fourteen-day trial and get full access to Shopify's entire suite of features. Grow your business with Shopify today - go to shopify.com/stoic right now.MUD WTR is a coffee alternative with 4 adaptogenic mushrooms and ayurvedic herbs with 1/7th the caffeine of a cup of coffee. Go to mudwtr.com/STOIC and use code STOIC to get 15% off your first purchase.Talkspace is an online and mobile therapy company. Visit talkspace.com and get $100 off your first month when you use promo code STOIC at sign-up. That's $100 off at talkspace.com, promo code STOIC.Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemailCheck out the Daily Stoic Store for Stoic inspired products, signed books, and more.Follow us: Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook