Podcasts about Yale Law School

Superpowers for Good should not be considered investment advice. Seek counsel before making investment decisions. When you purchase an item, launch a campaign or create an investment account after clicking a link here, we may earn a fee. Engage to support our work.Watch the show on television by downloading the e360tv channel app to your Roku, LG or AmazonFireTV. You can also see it on YouTube.Devin: What is your superpower?Jenny: Ability to make complex financial and legal concepts accessible.Creating a thriving community takes more than goodwill—it requires vision, leadership, and resources. Jenny Kassan, CEO of Opportunity Main Street, is proving that crowdfunding can be a powerful tool for revitalizing communities while offering investors a meaningful way to make a difference.Jenny is raising capital through a regulation crowdfunding campaign on SmallChange to renovate a historic building in Baltimore. This project, called Community Commons, will serve as both a hub for local businesses and a space for community-building activities. The first floor will feature a gathering space, coffee shop, and retail area, while the upper floors will house luxury furnished apartments for short-term rentals.Jenny explains her motivation: “I've believed for a while that it's really important to create a place-based ecosystem to grow this movement to move community capital into small business.” She has already raised $2.5 million for the project but is turning to crowdfunding to close the final gap.What makes this project stand out is its intentional focus on Baltimore. After hosting a women entrepreneurs' event in the city, Jenny fell in love with its historic charm and resilient spirit. “Baltimore is a beautiful, scrappy city,” she says. “There's a renaissance going on… it's a place where you can make a significant impact.”Jenny's choice of SmallChange as the crowdfunding platform is no accident. She highlights the portal's commitment to impact-focused real estate projects and its owner, Eve Picker: “She really cares about her clients… and the design of the page is absolutely beautiful.”By combining real estate with a community-driven mission, Jenny's project offers an opportunity for investors to see both financial returns and social impact. The short-term rental apartments are projected to generate strong revenue, while the first-floor activities will foster relationships, support local businesses, and teach community members how to invest locally.This isn't just about one building. Jenny hopes the Community Commons project will become a replicable model for other cities. “It's about creating a replicable model for community wealth building and supporting the local investing movement,” she says.With projects like these, Jenny is showing how crowdfunding can be a bridge between financial goals and community revitalization.Creating a thriving community takes more than goodwill—it requires vision, leadership, and resources. Jenny Kassan, CEO of Opportunity Main Street, is proving that crowdfunding can be a powerful tool for revitalizing communities while offering investors a meaningful way to make a difference.Jenny is raising capital through a regulation crowdfunding campaign on SmallChange to renovate a historic building in Baltimore. This project, called Community Commons, will serve as both a hub for local businesses and a space for community-building activities. The first floor will feature a gathering space, coffee shop, and retail area, while the upper floors will house luxury furnished apartments for short-term rentals.Jenny explains her motivation: “I've believed for a while that it's really important to create a place-based ecosystem to grow this movement to move community capital into small business.” She has already raised $2.5 million for the project but is turning to crowdfunding to close the final gap.What makes this project stand out is its intentional focus on Baltimore. After hosting a women entrepreneurs' event in the city, Jenny fell in love with its historic charm and resilient spirit. “Baltimore is a beautiful, scrappy city,” she says. “There's a renaissance going on… it's a place where you can make a significant impact.”Jenny's choice of SmallChange as the crowdfunding platform is no accident. She highlights the portal's commitment to impact-focused real estate projects and its owner, Eve Picker: “She really cares about her clients… and the design of the page is absolutely beautiful.”By combining real estate with a community-driven mission, Jenny's project offers an opportunity for investors to see both financial returns and social impact. The short-term rental apartments are projected to generate strong revenue, while the first-floor activities will foster relationships, support local businesses, and teach community members how to invest locally.This isn't just about one building. Jenny hopes the Community Commons project will become a replicable model for other cities. “It's about creating a replicable model for community wealth building and supporting the local investing movement,” she says.With projects like these, Jenny is showing how crowdfunding can be a bridge between financial goals and community revitalization.tl;dr:Jenny Kassan shares her vision for revitalizing Baltimore with a historic real estate project.Community Commons will combine short-term rentals with a hub for local businesses and activities.Jenny highlights the impact of crowdfunding and her partnership with the SmallChange platform.She demonstrates how simplifying financial concepts empowers underserved communities to raise capital.Jenny's replicable model aims to inspire more community wealth-building projects nationwide.How to Develop Simplifying Complex Financial Concepts As a SuperpowerJenny describes her superpower as the ability to make complex financial and legal concepts accessible. She explains, “I've learned so much about finance, securities law… and I feel like my superpower is bringing it down to a level of clarity for people.” Her passion stems from a desire to make the world of finance less opaque and intimidating, especially for those who lack traditional financial knowledge or access to resources.Illustrative Story:Jenny's superpower shone when she helped a worker co-op in Boston called CERO raise capital for a composting business. Comprised of highly disadvantaged individuals, the co-op needed funding for a truck but wanted to retain worker control. Jenny structured an offering of non-voting equity, allowing the workers to remain in charge while raising several hundred thousand dollars. This project exemplifies her ability to simplify financial tools for underserved communities, empowering them to achieve their goals.Actionable Tips to Develop the Superpower:Deepen Your Expertise: Invest time in learning the intricacies of your field, as Jenny did with finance.Practice Simplifying Concepts: Break down complex ideas into clear, relatable language to help others understand them.Empathize with Your Audience: Tailor your explanations to the needs and backgrounds of those you're helping.Stay Mission-Driven: Focus on using your knowledge to empower others and create meaningful change.By following Jenny's example and advice, you can make simplifying complex concepts a skill. With practice and effort, you could make it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Remember, however, that research into success suggests that building on your own superpowers is more important than creating new ones or overcoming weaknesses. You do you!Guest ProfileJenny Kassan (she/her):CEO, Opportunity Main StreetAbout Opportunity Main Street: Opportunity Main Street is growing a place-based community wealth building ecosystem in Baltimore that includes community investing in local business, a community business school, and mutual aid through a time-banking network.Website: opportunitymainstreet.comBiographical Information: Jenny is an attorney, coach, and ecosystem builder focused on capital access for underrepresented entrepreneurs.Jenny earned her J.D. from Yale Law School and a masters degree in City and Regional Planning from UC Berkeley.She is the author of Raise Capital on Your Own Terms: How to Fund Your Business without Selling Your Soul.Jenny co-founded the Sustainable Economies Law Center, the Force for Good Fund, and Opportunity Main Street. X/Twitter Handle: @jennykassan Personal Facebook Profile: facebook.com/jenny.kassanLinkedin: linkedin.com/in/jennykassanInstagram Handle: @thekassangroupSupport Our SponsorsOur generous sponsors make our work possible, serving impact investors, social entrepreneurs, community builders and diverse founders. Today's advertisers include FundingHope, DealMaker, DNA, Rancho Affordable Housing (Proactive). Learn more about advertising with us here.Max-Impact MembersThe following Max-Impact Members provide valuable financial support:Carol Fineagan, Independent Consultant | Hiten Sonpal, RISE Robotics | Lory Moore, Lory Moore Law | Marcia Brinton, High Desert Gear |  Matthew Mead, Hempitecture |  Michael Pratt, Qnetic | Dr. Nicole Paulk, Siren Biotechnology | Paul Lovejoy, Stakeholder Enterprise | Pearl Wright, Global Changemaker | Ralf Mandt, Next Pitch | Scott Thorpe, Philanthropist | Sharon Samjitsingh, Health Care Originals | Add Your Name HereUpcoming SuperCrowd Event CalendarIf a location is not noted, the events below are virtual.Impact Cherub Club Meeting hosted by The Super Crowd, Inc., a public benefit corporation, on August 19, 2025, at 1:00 PM Eastern. Each month, the Club meets to review new offerings for investment consideration and to conduct due diligence on previously screened deals. To join the Impact Cherub Club, become an Impact Member of the SuperCrowd.SuperCrowdHour, August 20, 2025, at 12:00 PM Eastern. Devin Thorpe, CEO and Founder of The Super Crowd, Inc., will lead a session on "Your Portal, Your Future: How to Choose the Right Reg CF Platform." With so many investment crowdfunding portals available today, selecting the right one can be overwhelming for both founders and investors. In this session, Devin will break down the critical factors to consider—such as platform fees, audience demographics, compliance support, industry focus, and overall user experience. Whether you're a founder planning a raise or an investor exploring where to put your dollars to work, you'll walk away with a clearer understanding of how to evaluate and choose the platform that best aligns with your goals. Don't miss this practical, insight-packed hour designed to help you take your next step in the Reg CF ecosystem with confidence.SuperCrowd25, August 21st and 22nd: This two-day virtual event is an annual tradition but with big upgrades for 2025! We'll be streaming live across the web and on TV via e360tv. Apply for the Live Pitch here. VIPs get access to our better-than-in-person networking, including backstage passes, VIP networking and an exclusive VIP webinar! Get your VIP access for just $25. A select group of affordable sponsorship opportunities is still available. Learn more here.Community Event CalendarSuccessful Funding with Karl Dakin, Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ET - Click on Events.Devin Thorpe is featured in a free virtual masterclass series hosted by Irina Portnova titled Break Free, Elevate Your Money Mindset & Call In Overflow, focused on transforming your relationship with money through personal stories and practical insights. June 8-21, 2025.Join Dorian Dickinson, founder & CEO of FundingHope, for Startup.com's monthly crowdfunding workshop, where he'll dive into strategies for successfully raising capital through investment crowdfunding. June 24 at noon Eastern.Future Forward Summit: San Francisco, Wednesday, June 25 · 3:30 - 8:30 pm PDT.Regulated Investment Crowdfunding Summit 2025, Crowdfunding Professional Association, Washington DC, October 21-22, 2025.Impact Accelerator Summit is a live in-person event taking place in Austin, Texas, from October 23–25, 2025. This exclusive gathering brings together 100 heart-centered, conscious entrepreneurs generating $1M+ in revenue with 20–30 family offices and venture funds actively seeking to invest in world-changing businesses. Referred by Michael Dash, participants can expect an inspiring, high-impact experience focused on capital connection, growth, and global impact.Call for community action:Please show your support for a tax credit for investments made via Regulation Crowdfunding, benefiting both the investors and the small businesses that receive the investments. Learn more here.If you would like to submit an event for us to share with the 9,000+ changemakers, investors and entrepreneurs who are members of the SuperCrowd, click here.We use AI to help us write compelling recaps of each episode. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P., is the President of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception (PFIC) at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. He is an Ordinary Member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, a Ph.L. from the School of Philosophy of The Catholic University of America, and a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. He entered the Order of Preachers in 2001, after having practiced constitutional law for several years as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. He has also taught at The Catholic University of America Law School and at Providence College. He is the author of The Trinitarian Christology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Oxford University Press, 2017).

This Flashback Friday is from episode 345, published last November 5, 2013. Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam. She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association. In 1999 Karen reported the corrupt take-over of the second largest bank in the Philippines. The Bank's Country Director in the Philippines reassigned Karen when she asked him to sign a letter warning the Philippines' government that the Bank could not disburse its loan. Two days after informing the Board's Audit Committee of the cover-up in the Philippines, Karen was reprimanded and placed on probation. The Chair of the World Bank's Audit Committee requested an inquiry into the World Bank's Institutional Integrity Department. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations followed up with three letters to the World Bank. The World Bank forged documents and fired Karen in contempt of Congress. In 2007 Karen advised the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen's Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010.   Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com  

Applying Biblical Principles & Wisdom when Scaling from Boardrooms to Medical Missions.   In this engaging episode of the Wonderful Leaders Podcast, Dan sits down with Mark, a renowned serial entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist. They delve into Mark's journey from teaching high school to founding impactful organizations such as Gerson Lehrman Group, United Hatzalah of Israel, and African Mission Healthcare.    The conversation highlights how Mark's faith, particularly his adherence to the Bible, has guided his philanthropy and business ventures. Mark discusses the concept of ROI philanthropy, the importance of giving in community, and how biblical principles inform both personal and professional success. He also offers valuable insights into selecting a life partner and emphasizes the transformational power of giving intelligently.   00:00 Welcome and Introduction 00:33 Meet Mark: A Journey of Impact 01:39 Mark's Background and Journey 02:50 The Power of Philanthropy 04:10 The Biblical Perspective on Giving 08:47 Biblical Principles in Business 15:53 The Role of Community in Success 19:35 Personal Insights and Family Life 29:03 Advice for Young People and Future Plans 33:30 Conclusion and Book Promotion   Book Mentioned - God Was Right: How Modern Social Science Proves the Torah Is True   About our Guest: Mark Gerson is a serial entrepreneur, investor and philanthropist with a track record of building innovative, high-impact organisations. He co-founded Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), the world's leading platform for on-demand business expertise, connecting professionals with a global network of over 600,000 independent consultants. He also co-founded Thuzio, a professional booking marketplace launched with former NFL player Tiki Barber, and Create, a venture studio focused on developing new companies from concept to launch. In the investment world, Mark helped establish the Tel Aviv Angel Group, backing early-stage Israeli startups, and is an advisor to Maverick Ventures Israel, a venture capital fund investing in early growth-stage tech companies. Beyond business, Mark is deeply committed to philanthropy. He is the co-founder and chairman of United Hatzalah of Israel, a groundbreaking network of volunteer medics, and co-founder of African Mission Healthcare, which supports Christian medical missionaries providing critical care across Africa. In 2021, he donated $18 million to strengthen healthcare infrastructure and support clinical training on the continent. A graduate of Williams College and Yale Law School, Mark lives in New York City with his wife, Rabbi Erica Gerson, and their four children.

In this engaging conversation, Kathryn speaks with Mary Marantz, author of 'Underestimated', about her journey from growing up in a single wide trailer in West Virginia to attending Yale Law School and ultimately choosing a career in photography, podcasting, speaking, and writing. Mary shares her insights on overcoming fear, the importance of accountability, and the power of gratitude. She emphasizes that fear is a boring liar that keeps us from pursuing our dreams and encourages listeners to take action, even when scared. The discussion highlights the significance of recognizing the voice of fear and the impact of storytelling in empowering women to embrace their true potential.00:00 Introduction to Mary Marantz and Her Mission02:18 Growing Up in a Single Wide Trailer04:48 The Journey to Yale Law School10:40 Overcoming Self-Doubt and Fear19:30 Transitioning from Law to Photography26:21 The Writing Journey and Underestimated30:35 Fear as a Creative Enemy33:03 Understanding Fear and Its Impact36:40 The Power of Neuroplasticity39:34 Building Resilience Through Hardship42:03 The Importance of Accountability48:56 Embracing Self-Acceptance51:34 Reflecting on Personal Growth54:37 Encouragement to Overcome FearFollow me on Instagram:Kathryn @kathryn_benkoHeart + Sole @heartandsolepodcastSole Fitness @sole_fitnessSubscribe to our YouTube Channel and WATCH all episodes!Follow Mary on Instagram: @marymarantzVisit her website HERE!Purchase her new book HERE!Listen to her podcast HERE!Sign up for the Sole Online Training App!Use coupon code 'SOLE20' for 20% off your first month!!

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

Paris Marx is joined by Yangyang Cheng to discuss how Huawei became one of the most powerful companies in China and how current geopolitical narratives distract from the issues at the heart of surveillance capitalism in the US and China.Yangyang Cheng is a Research Scholar in Law and Fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center.Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon.The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Kyla Hewson.Also mentioned in this episode:Yangyang wrote about how Huawei is emblematic of China's capitalist model for China File.We also discuss Eva Dou's The House of Huawei.Donald Trump discussed how the USA uses the same tactics the government accuses China of employing in bad faith.Support the show

Paris Marx is joined by Yangyang Cheng to discuss how Huawei became one of the most powerful companies in China and how current geopolitical narratives distract from the issues at the heart of surveillance capitalism in the US and China.Yangyang Cheng is a Research Scholar in Law and Fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Celé PREMIUM VIDEO nájdeš tu

If you've ever struggled with fear, doubt, insecurity, or impostor syndrome, this episode is for you. Join me as I sit down with one of my new favorite people, Mary Marantz, whose story will inspire you to rise above and pursue your dreams. Having grown up in a single-wide trailer in West Virginia and being the first in her family to graduate college before attending Yale Law School, Mary Marantz knows what it's like to be underestimated. She understands the drive to prove others wrong and show everyone just how far you've come, while also doubting yourself at every turn. This conversation will help you realize that you can do that new hard thing you've been wanting to do—because guess what? You can. I'm so thankful for Mary and her work. Without further ado, let's get into it. Suggested Resources:Mary Marantz Website | InstagramThe Mary Marantz ShowMary's first book - DirtUnderestimated What's your achiever type quizSend me a text!This episode is proudly sponsored by: SizzlefishLet's talk about fueling your body with the best nature has to offer. If you're looking for premium, sustainable seafood delivered straight to your door, you need to check out Sizzlefish! Head to sizzlefish.com and use my code “wellnstrong” at checkout for an exclusive discount on your first order. Trust me, you're going to taste the difference with Sizzlefish! Join the WellnStrong mailing list for exclusive content here!Want more of The How To Be WellnStrong Podcast? Subscribe to the YouTube channel. Follow Jacqueline: Instagram Pinterest TikTok Youtube To access notes from the show & full transcripts, head over to WellnStrong's Podcast Page

We've all seen them. Endless Terms and Conditions followed by a click-box. Pages of Terms and Conditions whenever you sign a contract with a large company for services, loans, or just employment.  Often the T's and C's are illegal or unenforceable, yet you feel you need to sign them. Are you now at the mercy of the large entity because you've signed up to onerous terms?  Things are getting out of hand. We need a Rational View to get to the bottom of this problem. Daniel Wilf-Townsend is an Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown Law. His research focuses on the regulation of markets and technology, and in particular on the processes that legal institutions use to move the law from being words on paper to having actual consequences in everyday life. He teaches and writes on artificial intelligence, consumer protection, and civil litigation, and his work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Yale Law Journal Forum, Stanford Law Review Online, and other legal and general interest publications. A graduate of Yale Law School, before entering academia Professor Wilf-Townsend was a litigator at Gupta Wessler PLLC, a boutique law firm focused on public interest litigation in appellate courts and the Supreme Court.  Follow me on YouTube Make your voice heard with The Rational View on Facebook!

On June 18, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that prohibits medical transitions for transgender minors. In this episode, William Eskridge Jr. of Yale Law School and Christopher Green of The Ohio State University join to debate the decision and to discuss the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.    Resources United States v. Skrmetti (2025) Christopher Green, Brief amicus curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Oct. 15, 2024) William Eskridge, et al., Brief amici curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Sept. 3, 2024) Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Re-airing our most downloaded episode from our Vanishing Father's Series“To be a father was my way of breaking a cycle and starting over.” In this one sentence, today's guest, Peter Gronvall, insightfully reflects on his journey to fatherhood after growing up in a cult.- During his conversation with host Jamie Truman, Peter discusses his experience living in two distinct worlds: One world where he and his eight siblings were subjected to severe emotional and physical abuse, and another where he was a dedicated student and spent time with friends. He shares how he and his siblings persevered through these painful years, and the impact on his relationship with his parents.-Remarkably, Peter didn't let his experience derail his aspirations. He earned a full scholarship to college and then got accepted into Yale Law School, all the while being a source of support to his siblings. Most importantly, he became the type of father he always wanted: nurturing, empathetic, and protective.-Tune in to learn more about Peter Gronvall and how he survived growing up in a cult.-Purchase Vanishing Fathers 100% of the proceeds go to charity that help at-risk youthsConnect with Jamie at Truman Charities:FacebookInstagramLinkedInWebsiteYouTubeEmail: info@trumancharities.comThis episode was post produced by Podcast Boutique https://podcastboutique.com/

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

Acabou de sair mais um ep. da temporada Orgulho LGBTQIAPN+ na carreira!

Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, Truman Capote fellow for creative writing and law at Yale Law School and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019), discusses the latest news coming out of the Supreme Court, including President Donald Trump's legal battle for control of the California National Guard and more.

Is your parenting stress spilling over into your child's life? You're not alone—and you're not powerless. In this episode, Mark Gerson, author of God Was Right, shares how biblical wisdom—paired with modern psychology—can radically shift the way we understand independence, fear, and success in parenting. We cover: The connection between parental stress and children's anxiety How ancient stories like Isaac's birth and Joseph's rise can transform your parenting style The myth of “stranger danger” and how it fuels fear-based parenting Why celebrating your child's independence can relieve your stress How trusting God's plan reduces anxiety and promotes joyful parenting Mark helps us reframe stress, fear, and control through a lens of faith, confidence, and wisdom—so we can raise kids who thrive, not just survive.

Is your parenting stress spilling over into your child's life? You're not alone—and you're not powerless. In this episode, Mark Gerson, author of God Was Right, shares how biblical wisdom—paired with modern psychology—can radically shift the way we understand independence, fear, and success in parenting. We cover: The connection between parental stress and children's anxiety How ancient stories like Isaac's birth and Joseph's rise can transform your parenting style The myth of “stranger danger” and how it fuels fear-based parenting Why celebrating your child's independence can relieve your stress How trusting God's plan reduces anxiety and promotes joyful parenting Mark helps us reframe stress, fear, and control through a lens of faith, confidence, and wisdom—so we can raise kids who thrive, not just survive.

Yale Law School graduate and bestselling author Mary Marantz shares her new book, Underestimated: The Surprisingly Simple Shift to Quit Playing Small, Name the Fear, and Move Forward Anyway. The book describes practical steps to achieving greatness and pushing past the lies fear creates.  Mary discusses her upbringing and her father's emphasis on the importance of education. She explains how she stopped overthinking and overcame her self-doubt, which led her to find success and her true calling.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump has never been shy about his revolutionary ambitions. In his second term, he's moved aggressively to consolidate power within the executive branch—signing more than 150 executive orders in just over 150 days, sidelining Congress, and pressuring the institutions that were designed to check his authority. His supporters call it common sense. Critics call it dangerous. Either way, it's a fundamental shift in American governance—one that's unlike anything happening in any other major democracy.While Congress has largely collapsed into partisan submission, and the DOJ and other power ministries face political purges, one institution still stands: the courts. In this episode, Ian Bremmer speaks with New York Times Magazine staff writer and Yale Law School's Emily Bazelon about how the judiciary is holding up under pressure, what rulings to watch, and whether the rule of law can survive the Trump revolution.Host: Ian BremmerGuest: Emily Bazelon   Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

President Trump has never been shy about his revolutionary ambitions. In his second term, he's moved aggressively to consolidate power within the executive branch—signing more than 150 executive orders in just over 150 days, sidelining Congress, and pressuring the institutions that were designed to check his authority. His supporters call it common sense. Critics call it dangerous. Either way, it's a fundamental shift in American governance—one that's unlike anything happening in any other major democracy.While Congress has largely collapsed into partisan submission, and the DOJ and other power ministries face political purges, one institution still stands: the courts. In this episode, Ian Bremmer speaks with New York Times Magazine staff writer and Yale Law School's Emily Bazelon about how the judiciary is holding up under pressure, what rulings to watch, and whether the rule of law can survive the Trump revolution.Host: Ian BremmerGuest: Emily Bazelon   Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

Send us a textIn this candid conversation, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll joins Joe to pull back the curtain on what it really takes to modernize a military while staying grounded in soldier-level feedback. From wrestling with “irrationality and stupidity at scale” in the Pentagon to launching the Army Transformation Initiative, Driscoll shares why he's flipping tables—sometimes almost literally—to give soldiers the tools and trust they need to win the next fight. In this episode, they explore:How a 15-year “gap decade” in law, finance, and private equity enriched Driscoll's return to uniform and deepened his respect for everyday soldiersThe Army Transformation Initiative—delivering critical warfighting capabilities, optimizing force structure, and eliminating waste and obsolete programsA Fort Jackson drone drill where recruits with just five weeks in the Army changed training doctrine—proof that innovation starts at E-1Seasons vs. “work-life balance”: why high-tempo service demands conscious trade-offs at home, and how Driscoll keeps perspective as a husband and dad of twoThe IED-factory raid where rules forbade cutting a $2 padlock, and what it taught him about broken feedback loops in combatConcrete ways leaders at every level can accelerate change: send honest ground-truth up the chain, embrace small-unit credit-card innovation, and demand that processes serve soldiers firstWhether you're a private, a Pentagon staffer, or a curious civilian, this episode offers a front-row seat to the Army's most ambitious overhaul in decades—and a master class in leading large-scale change without losing sight of character, family, and the people who do the fighting.Daniel P. Driscoll is the 26th Secretary of the Army, sworn in on February 25, 2025. He leads the Army's efforts in operations, modernization, and resource management for nearly one million Soldiers and more than 265,000 Army Civilians.A former Army officer and business executive, Driscoll brings a diverse background in military service, law, and the private sector. Commissioned as an Armor Officer in 2007, he served with the 10th Mountain Division and deployed to Baghdad in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His military honors include the Army Commendation Medal, Ranger Tab, and Combat Action Badge.Following his service, he earned a J.D. from Yale Law School and held leadership roles in investment banking, private equity, and venture capital, including serving as COO of a $200 million fund. He holds a B.S. in Business Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.He is married to his high-school sweetheart, and they have two children.A Special Thanks to Our Sponsors!Veteran-founded Adyton. Step into the next generation of equipment management with Log-E by Adyton. Whether you are doing monthly inventories or preparing for deployment, Log-E is your pocket property book, giving real-time visibility into equipment status and mission readiness. Learn more about how Log-E can revolutionize your property tracking process here!Meet ROGER Bank—a modern, digital bank built for military members, by military members. With early payday, no fees, high-yield accounts, and real support, it's banking that gets you. Funds are FDIC insured through Citizens Bank of Edmond, so you can bank with confidence and peace of mind. 

The Christiana Incident offers a snapshot of the U.S. when the country was sorting into states where slavery was upheld and states that had abolished it, and what racist tension looked like at border states in the mid-1850s. Research: “The Christiana Affair Again.” New York Times. Sept. 20, 1851. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1851/09/20/87821677.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 “Christiana Resistance 1851.” Christiana Historical Society. https://www.christianahistoricalsociety.com/christiana-resistance “The Christiana Trials.” New York Times. Nov. 4, 1851. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1851/11/04/87823549.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Fugitive Slave Acts". Encyclopedia Britannica, 28 Feb. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Fugitive-Slave-Acts “Fatal Fugitive Slave Riot.” Boston Evening Transcript. Sept. 12, 1851. https://www.newspapers.com/image/734734274/ Forbes, David R. “A True Story of the Christiana Riot.” The Sun Printing House. Quarryville, PA. 1898. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044018986661&view=1up&seq=7 “Fugitive Slave Act 1850.” Yale Law School. Lillian Goldman Law Library. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/fugitive.asp “Fugitive Slave Riot in Lancaster Co., Pa.” New York Times. Sept. 18, 1851. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1851/09/18/109920970.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 “Christiana Riot Trial.” Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. 2015. https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/christiana-riot-trial/#national-history-day Parker, William. “A Freedman’s Story. The Atlantic. 1866. https://www.christianahistoricalsociety.com/_files/ugd/f64fcb_e6cde1713eb34263af1f191b3f349e21.pdf “Who was William Parker?” Christiana Historical Society. https://www.christianahistoricalsociety.com/william-parker See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/academic-life

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mark Gerson shares timeless, practical insights about work–sourced from the Bible and supported by modern social science.— YOU'LL LEARN — 1) Why Bible has helpful gems for folks from all religion–or lack thereof 2) The one question that leads to greater meaning 3) The optimal number of hours to work in a weekSubscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1064 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT MARK — Mark Gerson, a New York–based entrepreneur and philanthropist, is the cofounder of Gerson Lehrman Group, 3I Members, United Hatzalah of Israel, and African Mission Healthcare—where he and his wife, Rabbi Erica Gerson, made the largest gift ever to Christian medical missionaries.A graduate of Williams College and Yale Law School, Mark is the author of the national bestseller The Telling: How Judaism's Essential Book Reveals the Meaning of Life. Mark's articles and essays on subjects ranging from Frank Sinatra to the biblical Jonah to the Torah and science of clothing have been published in The New Republic, USA Today, Commentary, and Christian Broadcast Network. Mark lives with his wife and their four children.• Book: God Was Right: How Modern Social Science Proves the Torah Is True • Email: Mark@GodWasRight.com • Website: GodWasRight.com— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Study: “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work” by Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton • Study: “Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes” by Cort W. Rudolph, Ian M. Katz, Kristi N. Lavigne, and Hannes Zacher • Study: “The Productivity of Working Hours” by John Pencavel • Study: “Global, regional, and national burdens of ischemic heart disease and stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours for 194 countries, 2000–2016: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury” by Frank Pega et al. • Study: “Enclothed cognition” by Hajo Adam and Adam D. Galinsky • Study: “Sartorial Symbols of Social Class Elicit Class-Consistent Behavioral and Physiological Responses: A Dyadic Approach” by Michael W. Kraus and Wendy Berry Mendes • Study: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” by Barbara L. Fredrickson, Tomi-Ann Roberts, Stephanie M. Noll, Diane M. Quinn, and Jean M. Twenge• Video: Selective attention test • Past episode: 001: Communicating with Inspiration and Clarity with Mawi Asgedom • Past episode: 273: Taking Control of your Career with Korn Ferry's Gary Burnison • Past episode: 278: The Critical Factors Separating High and Low Performers with Morten Hansen • Past episode: 327: Unclog Your Brain through Unfocusing with Dr. Srini Pillay — THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/AwesomeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, we're speaking with Anastasia Boyko, a legal futurist and product evangelist at Filevine, a legal work platform for law firms and businesses. Anastasia has had a diverse career path, from practicing tax law to transformational and change management roles to legal education. She has created and led innovative programs at Yale Law School and the University of Utah SJ Quinney College of Law, where she has applied her knowledge of legal practice and business. Today, at Filevine, she collaborates with her team on creating and incubating new products in legal tech. In our conversation, Anastasia tells us about her journey to the legal field and why she ultimately decided to finish law school. We also discuss the need for empathy and kindness when training new lawyers, her exciting role as a legal futurist, and why law students should develop a range of skills. Read the full transcript of today's episode here: https://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/podcast_transcripts/Pioneers_%20AnastasiaBoyko.pdf

JD Vance has had an unorthodox rise to power. After a troubled childhood, he joined the Marines, graduated from Yale Law School, became a best-selling author, and then won a seat in the U.S. Senate. And now, at only 40, he is Vice President to Donald Trump, a man who Vance once described as "America's Hitler" and "cultural heroin." We're joined by The Atlantic's George Packer. His most recent piece, “The Talented Mr. Vance,” explores Vance's political transformation and whether or not he genuinely evolved his political views or cynically abandoned his principles for ambition. We also take a look at the Democrats' path forward. Packer shares how they can respond to Trump's appeal to disengaged voters. Read Packer's writing in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/author/george-packer/ 

Our VP used to think his path to power was through the ruling class at Yale Law School. But after 2016, he saw that his route was through Trump, so he swapped one set of elites for another. And now as a lord among the MAGA ruling class, he's embracing his true cruel, lying self—and railing against the globalists who nitpick about this silly due process thing. Meanwhile, even Elon doesn't like the bankruptcy-threatening reconciliation bill, even if it's larded with kickbacks just for him. Plus, America: stay and fight. And the biggest theft in the history of the presidency is happening every day right before our eyes. New Mexico congresswoman Melanie Stansbury and The Atlantic's George Packer join Tim Miller. show notes George's profile of the VP, "The Talented Mr. Vance" Rep. Stansbury being featured on Jimmy Kimmel Live! George's piece, "Be A Patriot" George on Ross Douthat Plus, tickets for our live show “Free Andry” on June 6 in DC

Join former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti and former FBI Special Agent and Yale Law School lecturer Asha Rangappa as they break down the biggest legal and political stories with sharp insight, real experience, and an unapologetic pro-democracy perspective. No spin, no both-sides nonsense — just the facts, the law, and what it all means for our democracy. This week Asha and Renato get you caught up on the Harvard fist fight with the Trump Administration and how the Supreme Court may have just overturned on its shadow docket, a 90 year old legal precedent to help Trump. Catch it all exclusively on the Legal AF YouTube channel and on the MeidasTouch Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Attorney Alex Taubes, a Yale Law School graduate and dedicated civil rights lawyer based in New Haven, Connecticut, delves into systemic misconduct within the criminal justice system. With a focus on wrongful convictions, police brutality, and governmental negligence, Taubes shares insights from his extensive legal career, including organizing the "7 Days of Truth with Proof" rally to highlight wrongful incarcerations. He discusses his efforts to combat systemic injustices and his commitment to advocating for the underrepresented. #CivilRights #CriminalJusticeReform #AlexTaubes #WrongfulConvictions #PoliceMisconduct #JusticeForAll #LegalAdvocacy #SystemicReform Connect with Alex Taubes: https://taubeslaw.com/ Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ Presented by Tyson 2.0 & Wooooo Energy: https://tyson20.com/ https://woooooenergy.com/ Buy Merch: https://convictclothing.net/collections/convict-clothing-x-ian-bick Timestamps: 00:00:00 Journey to Becoming a Lawyer in Connecticut 00:03:53 Navigating Private Legal Practice and Client Connections 00:08:20 Impact of Free Phone Calls and Tablets in Prisons 00:12:00 The Role of Unions in Connecticut Corrections 00:15:46 Gender Dynamics and Misconduct in Correctional Facilities 00:19:39 The Complexity of Judging Horrific Crimes 00:23:39 Failures in Accommodating Mental Health in Prisons 00:27:27 Uncovering Connecticut's Controversial Cases 00:31:26 The Division in Public Opinion: CEO Case and Societal Instability 00:35:17 The Struggles and Injustices in Civil Rights Cases 00:39:14 Alleged Police Misconduct in Waterbury Trial 00:43:04 Lawsuit Against City Over Workers' Compensation 00:46:43 Prison Leans and Legal Battles in Connecticut 00:50:36 Jury Selection in Civil vs. Criminal Cases 00:54:37 Challenges with Prosecutorial Power and Jury Influence 00:58:28 Challenges in the Criminal Justice System 01:02:15 Advancing Yourself Beyond Chess Powered by: Just Media House : https://www.justmediahouse.com/ Creative direction, design, assets, support by FWRD: https://www.fwrd.co Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jordana is a Yale Law School graduate and is the Founder and CEO of JC Coaching and Consulting and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law. Jordana's journey is a story of intense burnout and finding the passion that was always within her. Jordana is a guru of positive lawyering, taking fellow law students and Lawyers to move from fear to flourishing!Jordana and I started before Yale Law School, where she went through the why behind the Law School decision. She wanted to do something bigger and better in her life, and being a type A person, decided that Law School, and pursuing to be as a Federal Prosecutor would be the path to take. Entering her first year, Jordana would work tirelessly to be at the top of her class and gain those prestigious summer jobs. When then spoke about the various internships and jobs that Jordana held leading up to the turning point in her career. She would chase the shiny gold stars of legal prestigious, but at the cost of her mental and physical health, enduring stress and anxiety all for goals that she came to realize she would never reach. After working as a clerk for two years, she finally decided enough was enough, and turned to the academic side of the Law. The sparks of passion would fly as Jordana explored the world of positive psychology, laying down the foundations for her future Positive Lawyering class, which she teaches to Law Students today, and her Coaching and Consulting company. Jordana's insights on Positive Lawyering offered an overwhelming amount of wisdom for Lawyers and Law Students, living a life guided not by your fears but your values. She would focus on perfectionism, well-being, and many other topics to further show her unbelievable expertise in the space. Jordana is a well-known member of the legal community, and this conversation is one you do not want to miss, as anyone can take away wisdom from Jordana that can guide them for the rest of their career! Jordana's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordanaconfinoJordana's Website: https://www.jordanaconfino.com/Be sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 21-year-old super-star, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110 you get yourself the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10 you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about whether federal involvement safeguards or endangers free speech on college campuses. First on the show is Keith E. Whittington, is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School and founding chair of the Academic Freedom Alliance. Later, we hear from Charles Fain Lehman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal. You can find Keith on X @kewhittington and Charles at @CharlesFLehman. Both have written essays at The Dispatch on this topic. Whittington's can be found here while Lehman's can be found here.

Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, Truman Capote fellow for creative writing and law at Yale Law School and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution  and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019), offers legal analysis of the Supreme Court decision to continue to prohibit the Trump Administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, and shares her take on how the courts are limiting executive power (or not).

We unpack SCOTUS's decision to continue to prohibit the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.On Today's Show:Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, Truman Capote fellow for creative writing and law at Yale Law School and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019), offers legal analysis on how the courts are limiting executive power (or not).

On Thursday, the Trump administration's effort to limit birthright citizenship ended up in front of the Supreme Court.Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, discusses the White House's unusual legal strategy for defending its plan, and what it might mean for the future of presidential power.Guest: Adam Liptak, covers the Supreme Court. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002.Background reading: Adam Liptak wrote about the unusual features of the birthright citizenship case.Adam also wrote about the Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum who have been critical of nationwide injunctions, which apply to everyone affected by a challenged law, regulation or executive action.Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer shared four takeaways from the birthright citizenship case.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Drew Angerer/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Doug Owens was born and raised in Salt Lake City and graduated from the University of Utah and Yale Law School. He and his wife Cynthia Smart Owens have four children and are proud to call Millcreek their home. As an attorney, Doug has three decades' experience resolving complex commercial, environmental, and employment issues. Twenty-five years ago, Doug took two years off from his career to stay home with three little boys while Cynthia finished medical residency. Cynthia currently practices medicine at St. Mark's Hospital. Doug is committed to improving education, keeping Utah's economy strong, protecting our air, and preserving the places that make Utah special. Doug is the founder of Utah Outdoor Partners, a non-profit organization launched to raise awareness of the value of Utah's outdoors and promote the creation of parks, trails and other recreation infrastructure to keep pace with population growth.   

With the passing of Justice David Souter, the legal establishment has lost one of its most honored members.  In this and our next episode, we pay tribute to the man and his work with the help of an amazing roster of his former clerks, friends, and colleagues.  We begin with Judge Kevin Newsom from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Dean of the Yale Law School, Heather Gerken, who share their experience working closely with the Justice on the Supreme Court, as well as his role in their lives that did and does inspire them.  Meanwhile, Akhil, who considered the Justice a good friend and role model, offers an in-depth look at various aspects of the Justice, including why a Justice who disagreed with Akhil on method and, in many cases, substance, nevertheless is regarded by him as one of the great Justices in American history.  In our next episode we will have more guests whom we will reveal in the discussion during this episode.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. He has placed this issue at the forefront of his immigration agenda and it is now being taken up by the Supreme Court. To have this conversation, we've brought together a constitutional law scholar and a political commentator.Cristina Rodríguez is the Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law at Yale Law School. In 2021, she was appointed by President Biden to co-chair the Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. Her recent book is called The President and Immigration Law. She's also the co-host of the new podcast: Unsettled: Immigration in Turbulent Times.Rod D. Martin writes The Rod Martin Report on Substack. He is also the Founder and CEO of Martin Capital. As a tech entrepreneur and venture capitalist, Rod was previously an advisor to Peter Thiel. Rod also served as policy director to Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas.We talk a lot about the 14th Amendment in this episode. It was ratified in 1868 to give formerly enslaved people the right to vote. Here's what it says: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Keep that phrase in mind. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It'll come up a lot.Our guests also discuss the Supreme Court cases Elk v Wilkins, Slaughterhouse, and Wong Kim Ark. All you need to know for this episode is: those rulings influenced the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Last note, this episode is moderated by co-host and co-founder, Catherine Cushenberry. Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Colleges use advanced data tracking to fine-tune scholarship offers based on what they think you'll pay and to make you feel good about your price. Ben and Nathan explain how firms analyze digital behavior, like email click speed, to calculate offers. Wealthy students get merit aid, lower-income students get need-based aid, but both often pay the same price. The result is personalized pricing that favors schools. Later, they cover Yale Law Dean Heather Gerken's push to ditch rankings and focus on need-based aid. Ben suggests two fixes for law schools: eliminate student loans and scrap ABA requirements. The episode also covers the Perkins Coie ruling, another round of the Personal Statement Gong Show, and Tips from a Departing Demon. Study with our Free PlanDownload our iOS appWatch Episode 506 on YouTubeRegister for Parents' Night Vol. 30:30 – Law Schools Know What You'll PayBen and Nathan cover a NYTimes article that reveals how schools set tuition prices and financial aid. Law schools work with data firms that track every digital move, including email clicks, to determine how much you're willing to pay. They then personalize your financial aid offer accordingly. Out-of-state students are targeted with high sticker prices and bigger discounts, which still net higher profits for schools. Merit aid and need-based aid are distributed strategically so that students from different income levels often pay the same amount. This model lets law schools charge each student a different price, while making them all feel like they got a deal. Applying early signals price sensitivity and can help you get a better offer.EAB Sales Presentation32:07 – Abandon RankingsHeather Gerken, the Dean of Yale Law School, calls for moving away from law school rankings. Despite talk of supporting need-based aid, schools still spend ten times more on merit-based scholarships. The Trump administration's past proposal to cut loans for schools with high default rates could help stop these  “scammerships.” Ben argues that two reforms are key: end federal student loans and overhaul ABA accreditation requirements. But without new incentives, the tragedy of the commons suggests schools will keep playing the rankings game.57:28 – Big Law vs. Trump: Perkins DecisionIn a follow-up to the discussion on Episode 505, Ben and Nathan break down a new court ruling that found Trump's executive order, which attempted to penalize Perkins Coie, is unconstitutional. 59:43 – Personal Statement Gong ShowGabriella steps into the spotlight as the latest contestant in the Personal Statement Gong Show. Ben and Nathan read her personal statement and hit the gong the moment something goes wrong. The standing record to beat is ten lines, held by Greta.1:12:10 – Tips from a Departing DemonSam encourages students to follow the Demon's core advice: slow down, understand what you are reading, and solve each question. 1:16:15 – Index CalculationsThe Demon Scholarship Calculator is an estimate built on data from previous years. The proven way to go to law school for free is to improve your LSAT and keep your GPA high.1:18:54 - Word of the Week - Blithely“The government blithely describes the statements set out in Section 1 of EO 14230 as 'not seriously contested' and 'matters of public record.' This description is inaccurate.”

Justice David Souter has died.  Souter was one of the most private, low-profile justices ever to have served on the Supreme Court. He rarely gave interviews or speeches. Yet his tenure was anything but low profile. Deemed a “home run” nominee by Republicans, Souter defied partisan expectations on the bench and ultimately ceded his seat to a Democratic president.As we reflect on his legacy, we wanted to share this episode again.  Produced two years ago, this episode tells the story of how “No More Souters” became a rallying cry for Republicans and inspired a backlash that would change the Court forever.Voices in the episode include:• Ashley Lopez — NPR political correspondent• Anna Sale — host of Slate's Death, Sex & Money podcast • Tinsley Yarbrough — author and former political science professor at East Carolina University• Heather Gerken — Dean of Yale Law School and former Justice Souter clerk• Kermit Roosevelt III — professor at University of Pennsylvania School of Law and former Justice Souter clerk• Judge Peter Rubin — Associate Justice on Massachusetts Appeals Court and former Justice Souter clerk• Governor John H. Sununu — former governor of New Hampshire and President George H.W. Bush's Chief of StaffLearn more:• 1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey• 1992: Lee v. Weisman• 2000: Bush v. Gore• 2009: Citizens United v. FEC

In this episode, I'm joined by the incredible Mary Marantz, author of Underestimated. Mary and I dive into her inspiring journey—from growing up in a trailer to attending Yale Law School—and explore the power of overcoming perfectionism, managing fear, and embracing slow growth in business. Mary shares insights from her book, including how fear shows up in different forms and how to overcome it to unlock your potential. If you've ever felt stuck or underestimated, this episode is a must-listen!   Resources Mentioned: Underestimated book: namethefear.com Achiever Type Quiz: achieverquiz.com Follow Mary on Instagram: @marymarantz

Ananda is the author of Here For The Joy (2022) and Good News About the World Falling Apart (2025) the latter work being the subject of this podcast. Ananda went to Andover, Oberlin and Yale Law School and later taught English at St. Ann's School in Brooklyn.  In 1994, he left the city for upstate New York where he worked as a carpenter and mechanic and started seriously following his bliss.  He retired from carpentry when he hit 56, but never stopped teaching:  twelve years guiding students of shamanism at Spirit Hollow, the nature and spirituality center he co-founded, and the last twenty years and counting as an adjunct instructor of anthropology, history and mythology at the Community College of Vermont. For more information about Ananda and his many offerings, please see:  https://anandaforest.com/ This podcast is available on your favorite podcast feed, or here: https://endoftheroad.libsyn.com/episode-314-ananda-forest-good-news-about-the-world-falling-apart-the-third-turning-of-human-consciousness Have a blessed week!

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" is far easier said than done, yet if anyone's story exemplifies why we shouldn't let failure stand in our way, it's Girls Who Code founder Reshma Saujani. From applying to Yale Law School three times before being accepted, to becoming the first Indian American woman to run for Congress, Reshma refused to let "no" stop her from succeeding.  Saujani joins Liz to discuss how this tenacity ultimately led her to create the nonprofit Girls Who Code, which has now taught over 700,000 girls and women to code across the country. She shares how being the daughter of immigrants drove her to want to make an impact in America, the country responsible for saving her parents' lives after they were expelled from Uganda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Harold Hongju Koh, professor of international law and former dean at Yale Law School and former legal adviser of the U.S. Department of State, talks about President Trump's actions against big law firms that were involved in cases against the president or his businesses.

Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, Truman Capote fellow for creative writing and law at Yale Law School and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019), talks about the latest developments in the stand-off between a federal judge and the Trump administration over deportations, and other national news.

There's an ongoing stand-off between a federal judge and the Trump administration over their deportation practices. On Today's Show:Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, Truman Capote fellow for creative writing and law at Yale Law School and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019), shares her legal and political analysis. 

The morning of March 8, Mahmoud Khalil was detained at his apartment in New York City. Khalil is a 30-year-old Algerian citizen. He was born in Syria and is of Palestinian descent. He came to this country on a student visa in 2022, married an American citizen in 2023, became a green card holder in 2024, and finished his graduate studies at Columbia University in December 2024. Mahmoud was also the spokesman and negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a group that says it is “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” and which played an active role in the rioting that took over Columbia buildings last spring. He has not been charged with any crimes—at least not so far. But the White House wants to deport him on the grounds that he poses a threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went as far as to post on X: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” Many of us believe that Khalil's ideology is abhorrent. He enjoyed the United States' educational system—attending one of our most prestigious universities—while advocating for America's destruction and for a group that seeks the genocide of the Jewish people. At the same time, the case for his deportation is not clear-cut. Here's the divide: Some say this is an immigration case. As Free Press contributing editor Abigail Shrier has put it: “This is an immigration, not a free speech case. It's about whether the U.S. can set reasonable conditions on aliens for entry and residence.” But others say this is, in fact, a free speech case that cuts to the heart of our most cherished values. To figure all this out, we're hosting three of the smartest legal minds we know. Eugene Volokh is an expert on the Bill of Rights who is currently a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. He's also a contributor to Reason magazine, where he runs his own blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder is a practicing lawyer and the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. Just yesterday, he filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against Khalil and several others for material support for terror. Jed Rubenfeld is a Free Press columnist and a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School. This case is one we have written about extensively in The Free Press—and one that we are actively debating in our newsroom. So we were thrilled to be able to bring together some of the smartest people on this complicated issue. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices