Podcasts about Yale Law School

How should we punish criminals? In Impermissible Punishments, the Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Judith Resnik, provides a historical narrative of punishment in European and American prisons. Tracing the evolution from Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian Panopticon through post-World War II human rights frameworks, Resnik argues that punishment systems developed as a transatlantic rather than uniquely American project. Her analysis reveals how prisoners themselves, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights during detention. Resnik's new book chronicles a crucial divergence after the 1980s, when European systems maintained stronger human rights commitments while American prisons retreated from recognizing prisoners as rights-bearing individuals, thereby making prison a problem for its democracy. 1. Prison systems developed as a transatlantic project, not American innovation Punishment theories and practices emerged from shared Enlightenment thinking across Europe and America in the 1700s-1800s. Figures like Beccaria, Bentham, and Tocqueville created interconnected ideas about rational, purposeful punishment that crossed national boundaries.2. Prisoners, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights While reformers debated how to punish effectively, it was people in detention themselves—like Winston Talley in Arkansas in 1965—who first argued they retained fundamental rights during incarceration. This represented a revolutionary shift from viewing prisoners as "civilly dead."3. World War II created the crucial turning point for prisoners' rights The horrors of concentration camps and fascist regimes made clear the dangers of treating any group as less than human. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1955 UN prison rules marked the formal recognition of prisoners as rights-bearing individuals.4. America and Europe diverged after the 1980s on prisoner treatment While both regions initially embraced prisoners' rights in the 1960s-70s, the U.S. retreated during the "war on crime" era. Europe maintained stronger human rights commitments, while America expanded punitive measures like solitary confinement and mass incarceration.5. Prison conditions reflect broader democratic health Resnik argues that how a society treats its most marginalized members—prisoners, immigrants, minorities—indicates the strength of its democratic institutions. Authoritarian treatment of any group threatens the rights of all citizens in a democratic system.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this joint episode between Pekingology and the ChinaPower Podcast, CSIS Freeman Chair Senior Fellow Henrietta Levin and co-host CSIS China Power Project Deputy Director and Fellow Brian Hart are joined by Dan Wang to discuss his new book, Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future. The conversation unpacks China's monumentalism in its grand engineering projects, the advantages and consequences of building at such scale, China's push to lead in key technologies, Beijing's social engineering efforts, and much more. Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab. Previously, he was a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and a lecturer at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies. From 2017 to 2023, he worked in China as the technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics, based in Hong Kong, Beijing, and then Shanghai. For more from Dan Wang, please read his latest piece in Foreign Affairs titled The Real China Model: Beijing's Enduring Formula for Wealth and Power.

In this joint episode of Pekingology and the ChinaPower Podcast, CSIS Freeman Chair Senior Fellow Henrietta Levin and co-host CSIS China Power Project Deputy Director and Fellow Brian Hart are joined by Dan Wang to discuss his new book, Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future. The conversation unpacks China's monumentalism in its grand engineering projects, the advantages and consequences of building at such scale, China's push to lead in key technologies, Beijing's social engineering efforts, and much more. Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab. Previously, he was a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and a lecturer at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies. From 2017 to 2023, he worked in China as the technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics, based in Hong Kong, Beijing, and then Shanghai. For more from Dan Wang, please read his latest piece in Foreign Affairs - The Real China Model: Beijing's Enduring Formula for Wealth and Power.

In this episode, we talk to Etelle Higonnet. She is the Founder & Director of Coffee Watch. A graduate of Yale Law School, she's an attorney and environmental and human rights activist. She previously worked at Mighty Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, as well as two war crimes courts. She was knighted as a Chevalier de l'ordre national du Mérite in her home country of France for her pioneering efforts to curb deforestation in high-risk commodities with an emphasis on cocoa, rubber, palm oil, cattle, and soy industries. She has worked in over 30 countries, is widely published, speaks 9 languages, and is now dedicated to trying to end deforestation and slavery in the global coffee industryTimestamps to relevant points within the episode, use this format:[00:00] -Introduction to Etelle Higonnet[02:52] -The Birth of Coffee Watch[04:22] -The Dark Side of Coffee Production[08:27] -Child Labor in Coffee Farming[15:04] -Breaking the Cycle of Poverty[18:52] -The Role of Law in Corporate Accountability[23:56] -Greenwashing and Consumer Power[34:37] -Impact of Coffee Watch and Future Goals[47:18] - Final Thoughts and Call to ActionLinks from the episodes:How Your Coffee Can Make A Difference with RAW CoffeeWhere can people find our guest?Coffee WatchEtelle HigonnetKey Takeaways:Etelle's journey into human rights began in Guatemala as a teenager.Coffee Watch aims to combat human rights and environmental abuses in the coffee industry.Most coffee consumed globally is linked to child labor and deforestation.Parents of child laborers want their children in school but face economic obstacles.Living income for farmers can eliminate child labor and poverty in coffee production.Certifications often do not guarantee a living wage for farmers.Consumer demand can drive companies to adopt better practices.Greenwashing is prevalent in the coffee industry, making it hard to identify ethical products.Law enforcement is crucial for addressing illegal practices in the coffee industry.The future of coffee production can be sustainable with consumer awareness and action.

Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab, and previously a fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Before that, he was an analyst focused on China's technology capabilities at Gavekal Dragonomics, based across Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. Dan is perhaps best known for a series of annual letters, published between 2017-2023, which encapsulate his reflections on Chinese society; his writing has also appeared in other outlets including Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and beyond. In this New Books Network Episode, Dan discusses his debut book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future (Norton, 2025). Styled as an aggregation of seven of his famed annual letters, Breakneck presents a dichotomy of China and the US as an “engineering state” and "lawyerly society” respectively, and traces how China's “engineering state” has shaped Chinese society over the last decade.  Breakneck is now available for purchase online and in physical bookstores. Show notes: Dan's website Dan's annual letters: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 Dan's blogpost about Breakneck, which we reference several times in the episode China-related English books that Dan mentions: The Halls of Uselessness (Simon Leys), Other Rivers (Peter Hessler), Invitation to a Banquet (Fuchsia Dunlop) Chinese-language movies from 2017+ that Anthony recommends for illustrating a diverse spectrum of sociopolitical noteworthiness: Wolf Warrior 2 (for China's nationalistic/geopolitical narrative), Upstream (for China's tech industry/labor market), Detention (for Taiwanese popular memory on authoritarianism); plus two additional movies not mentioned in the episode — Ne Zha 2 (for China's soft power potential) and Limbo (for a dark taste of Hong Kong's contemporary malaise).  Chinese-language movies that Dan recommendations: Caught by the Tides (Jia Zhangke), One Second (Zhang Yimou) Anthony Kao is a writer who intersects international affairs and cultural criticism. He founded/edits Cinema Escapist—a publication exploring the sociopolitical context behind global film and television—and also writes for outlets like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Diplomat, and Eater. 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

Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab, and previously a fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Before that, he was an analyst focused on China's technology capabilities at Gavekal Dragonomics, based across Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. Dan is perhaps best known for a series of annual letters, published between 2017-2023, which encapsulate his reflections on Chinese society; his writing has also appeared in other outlets including Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and beyond. In this New Books Network Episode, Dan discusses his debut book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future (Norton, 2025). Styled as an aggregation of seven of his famed annual letters, Breakneck presents a dichotomy of China and the US as an “engineering state” and "lawyerly society” respectively, and traces how China's “engineering state” has shaped Chinese society over the last decade.  Breakneck is now available for purchase online and in physical bookstores. Show notes: Dan's website Dan's annual letters: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 Dan's blogpost about Breakneck, which we reference several times in the episode China-related English books that Dan mentions: The Halls of Uselessness (Simon Leys), Other Rivers (Peter Hessler), Invitation to a Banquet (Fuchsia Dunlop) Chinese-language movies from 2017+ that Anthony recommends for illustrating a diverse spectrum of sociopolitical noteworthiness: Wolf Warrior 2 (for China's nationalistic/geopolitical narrative), Upstream (for China's tech industry/labor market), Detention (for Taiwanese popular memory on authoritarianism); plus two additional movies not mentioned in the episode — Ne Zha 2 (for China's soft power potential) and Limbo (for a dark taste of Hong Kong's contemporary malaise).  Chinese-language movies that Dan recommendations: Caught by the Tides (Jia Zhangke), One Second (Zhang Yimou) Anthony Kao is a writer who intersects international affairs and cultural criticism. He founded/edits Cinema Escapist—a publication exploring the sociopolitical context behind global film and television—and also writes for outlets like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Diplomat, and Eater. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab, and previously a fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Before that, he was an analyst focused on China's technology capabilities at Gavekal Dragonomics, based across Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. Dan is perhaps best known for a series of annual letters, published between 2017-2023, which encapsulate his reflections on Chinese society; his writing has also appeared in other outlets including Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and beyond. In this New Books Network Episode, Dan discusses his debut book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future (Norton, 2025). Styled as an aggregation of seven of his famed annual letters, Breakneck presents a dichotomy of China and the US as an “engineering state” and "lawyerly society” respectively, and traces how China's “engineering state” has shaped Chinese society over the last decade.  Breakneck is now available for purchase online and in physical bookstores. Show notes: Dan's website Dan's annual letters: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 Dan's blogpost about Breakneck, which we reference several times in the episode China-related English books that Dan mentions: The Halls of Uselessness (Simon Leys), Other Rivers (Peter Hessler), Invitation to a Banquet (Fuchsia Dunlop) Chinese-language movies from 2017+ that Anthony recommends for illustrating a diverse spectrum of sociopolitical noteworthiness: Wolf Warrior 2 (for China's nationalistic/geopolitical narrative), Upstream (for China's tech industry/labor market), Detention (for Taiwanese popular memory on authoritarianism); plus two additional movies not mentioned in the episode — Ne Zha 2 (for China's soft power potential) and Limbo (for a dark taste of Hong Kong's contemporary malaise).  Chinese-language movies that Dan recommendations: Caught by the Tides (Jia Zhangke), One Second (Zhang Yimou) Anthony Kao is a writer who intersects international affairs and cultural criticism. He founded/edits Cinema Escapist—a publication exploring the sociopolitical context behind global film and television—and also writes for outlets like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Diplomat, and Eater. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab, and previously a fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Before that, he was an analyst focused on China's technology capabilities at Gavekal Dragonomics, based across Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. Dan is perhaps best known for a series of annual letters, published between 2017-2023, which encapsulate his reflections on Chinese society; his writing has also appeared in other outlets including Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and beyond. In this New Books Network Episode, Dan discusses his debut book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future (Norton, 2025). Styled as an aggregation of seven of his famed annual letters, Breakneck presents a dichotomy of China and the US as an “engineering state” and "lawyerly society” respectively, and traces how China's “engineering state” has shaped Chinese society over the last decade.  Breakneck is now available for purchase online and in physical bookstores. Show notes: Dan's website Dan's annual letters: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 Dan's blogpost about Breakneck, which we reference several times in the episode China-related English books that Dan mentions: The Halls of Uselessness (Simon Leys), Other Rivers (Peter Hessler), Invitation to a Banquet (Fuchsia Dunlop) Chinese-language movies from 2017+ that Anthony recommends for illustrating a diverse spectrum of sociopolitical noteworthiness: Wolf Warrior 2 (for China's nationalistic/geopolitical narrative), Upstream (for China's tech industry/labor market), Detention (for Taiwanese popular memory on authoritarianism); plus two additional movies not mentioned in the episode — Ne Zha 2 (for China's soft power potential) and Limbo (for a dark taste of Hong Kong's contemporary malaise).  Chinese-language movies that Dan recommendations: Caught by the Tides (Jia Zhangke), One Second (Zhang Yimou) Anthony Kao is a writer who intersects international affairs and cultural criticism. He founded/edits Cinema Escapist—a publication exploring the sociopolitical context behind global film and television—and also writes for outlets like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Diplomat, and Eater. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab, and previously a fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Before that, he was an analyst focused on China's technology capabilities at Gavekal Dragonomics, based across Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. Dan is perhaps best known for a series of annual letters, published between 2017-2023, which encapsulate his reflections on Chinese society; his writing has also appeared in other outlets including Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and beyond. In this New Books Network Episode, Dan discusses his debut book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future (Norton, 2025). Styled as an aggregation of seven of his famed annual letters, Breakneck presents a dichotomy of China and the US as an “engineering state” and "lawyerly society” respectively, and traces how China's “engineering state” has shaped Chinese society over the last decade.  Breakneck is now available for purchase online and in physical bookstores. Show notes: Dan's website Dan's annual letters: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 Dan's blogpost about Breakneck, which we reference several times in the episode China-related English books that Dan mentions: The Halls of Uselessness (Simon Leys), Other Rivers (Peter Hessler), Invitation to a Banquet (Fuchsia Dunlop) Chinese-language movies from 2017+ that Anthony recommends for illustrating a diverse spectrum of sociopolitical noteworthiness: Wolf Warrior 2 (for China's nationalistic/geopolitical narrative), Upstream (for China's tech industry/labor market), Detention (for Taiwanese popular memory on authoritarianism); plus two additional movies not mentioned in the episode — Ne Zha 2 (for China's soft power potential) and Limbo (for a dark taste of Hong Kong's contemporary malaise).  Chinese-language movies that Dan recommendations: Caught by the Tides (Jia Zhangke), One Second (Zhang Yimou) Anthony Kao is a writer who intersects international affairs and cultural criticism. He founded/edits Cinema Escapist—a publication exploring the sociopolitical context behind global film and television—and also writes for outlets like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Diplomat, and Eater. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While everyone starts their morning a little differently, one thing many people have in common is pouring a cup of coffee. But what if I told you that your daily ritual of coffee is more than likely funding mass deforestation, biodiversity loss, and slavery? One thing you know is that on this podcast, we vote with our dollar, and what we buy every single day, where we buy it, and who we buy it from, all make a difference in the impact we have not only on the environment, but on workers across the globe. That's why in episode 194 of the Outdoor Minimalist podcast, I sit down to chat with Etelle Higonnet.Etelle is the Founder & Director of Coffee Watch. A graduate of Yale Law School, she's an attorney and environmental and human rights activist. She previously worked at Mighty Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, as well as two war crimes courts. She was knighted in her home country of France for her pioneering efforts to curb deforestation in high-risk commodities with an emphasis on cocoa, rubber, palm oil, cattle, and soy industries. She has worked in over 30 countries, is widely published, speaks 9 languages, and is now dedicated to ending deforestation and slavery in the global coffee industry.Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/outdoor.minimalist.book/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theoutdoorminimalist.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@theoutdoorminimalist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee: ⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/outdoorminimalist⁠Listener Survey: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://forms.gle/jd8UCN2LL3AQst976⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠-----------------Coffee WatchWebsite: https://coffeewatch.org/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/coffeewatch/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coffeewatchorg/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/coffeewatchorgYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CoffeeWatchOrg

【聊了什么】 在特朗普2.0时代，高院6比3的保守派多数已成定局。面对特朗普政府在行政权上的不断扩张和对司法独立底线的不断试探，高院是如何回应的？最高法院是美国民主的最后一道防线，还是行政权力的橡皮图章？ 本期节目中，我们与两位嘉宾复盘最高法院近期的关键判决，剖析其对美国政治与社会的深远影响。 播客文字稿（付费会员专享）：https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 03:05 高院年度盘点背景介绍：特朗普第二任期与6比3的保守派多数 05:26 批判“3-3-3”法院的说法 11:10 首席大法官罗伯茨的个人议程与困境 15:05 宪法、政策与司法审查：法院角色的理论探讨 21:27 Trump v. CASA 与出生公民权 41:01 “影子卷宗”(Shadow Docket)的兴起及其影响 46:41 影子卷宗案例：移民与行政权力案件 53:01 从高院判决看总统制与议会制的差异 64:43 LGBTQ权益与父母权利的冲突 72:48 阿里托的愤怒与杰克逊的“末日预言” 83:24 高院的未来：合法性危机与下任期展望 95:34 重新审视法院角色 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Lokin：美国法学院毕业生，即将成为一名纽约诉讼律师 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 Nancy：普林斯顿大学政治学博士生，耶鲁法学院法律博士 品达：美国政治观察人士 【 What We Talked About】 In the era of Trump 2.0, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court is a settled reality. How has the Court responded to the Trump administration's continuous expansion of executive power and its constant testing of the boundaries of judicial independence? Is the Supreme Court the last line of defense for American democracy, or a mere rubber stamp for executive authority? In this episode, we are joined by two guests to review the Supreme Court's recent key decisions and analyze their profound impact on American politics and society. Podcast Transcript (Paid Subscribers Only): https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 03:05 Background for the Supreme Court's Year in Review: Trump's Second Term and the 6-3 Conservative Majority 05:26 Critiquing the "3-3-3" Court Theory 11:10 Chief Justice Roberts's Personal Agenda and Dilemmas 15:05 Constitution, Policy, and Judicial Review: A Theoretical Exploration of the Court's Role 21:27 Trump v. CASA and Birthright Citizenship 41:01 The Rise of the "Shadow Docket" and Its Impact 46:41 Shadow Docket Cases: Immigration and Executive Power 53:01 Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems as Seen Through Supreme Court Rulings 64:43 The Conflict Between LGBTQ Rights and Parental Rights 72:48 Justice Alito's Anger and Justice Jackson's "Doomsday Prophecy" 83:24 The Future of the Supreme Court: Legitimacy Crisis and a Look Ahead to the Next Term 95:34 Reexamining the Role of the Court 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Lokin: U.S. law school student, incoming NY litigation lawyer 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information Nancy：Princeton Politics PhD student, Yale Law School graduate Pinda：American political enthusiast 【The Links】 Trump v. CASA, Inc. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf Mahmoud v. Taylor https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf A. A. R. P. v. Trump https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf Skrmetti v. United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf Trump v. Wilcox https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf KBJ's footnote 12 in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it/ How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/magazine/scotus-transgender-care-tennessee-skrmetti.html Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html Lawless https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628

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

What happens when the President plays mob boss - “How much can I get away with? Who's going to stop me?” I talk with American legal scholar ROBERT POST of Yale Law School about the rule of law, the American legal system, free speech, academic freedom, public morality, and the Supreme Court's weakness in the age of Trump. You can learn more at law.yale.edu/robert-c-post Robert Post 2025 Transcript

One question I frequently receive, as a lawyer turned writer, is whether I miss the practice of law. My honest answer is no. In my current job, I feel I get some of the best aspects of a legal career, such as the intellectual stimulation and challenge, without the worst ones, such as billable hours (or, for those lawyers who don't bill time, the stress of being in a client-focused business).But what if I had stayed in the practice of law? And what if I had remained at the firm where I started my post-clerkship legal career, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz? And while I'm taking an imaginary trip down the road not taken, what if I had gone into corporate or transactional work, with a focus on mergers and acquisitions (M&A), instead of litigation?If you changed a few other things about me—e.g., if you raised my IQ and ability to tolerate stress, while lowering my laziness—maybe I'd have a legal career like that of David Lam. We have a number of things in common. After graduating from fancy colleges, we went straight through to Yale Law School, where we overlapped. Following clerkships for prominent federal appellate judges, we started our careers at Wachtell Lipton, where we were sometimes confused with each other (based on our similar names and certain demographic similarities).I left WLRK after a few years, while David Lam stayed—and went on to a spectacular legal career. He's now one of the country's top M&A lawyers, according to The American Lawyer, Chambers, Lawdragon, and many other authorities. He's also co-chair of the M&A practice at Wachtell Lipton, viewed by many as the nation's #1 firm for mergers and acquisitions.Wachtell Lipton partners don't give many interviews or speak to the media that often. So I was delighted and grateful when David agreed to join me on the Original Jurisdiction podcast. And I think you'll enjoy our conversation, covering David's high-powered legal career, the state of the current M&A market, some secrets of success for Wachtell Lipton as a firm, and more.Show Notes:* David K. Lam bio, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz* David Lam profile, Chambers and Partners* Dealmakers of the Year: The Spinmeister—David Lam, by The American LawyerPrefer 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. 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

In this episode of Data Driven Finance, we talk with David Silberman. David is a Visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School as well as a Senior Advisor to the Center for Responsible Lending, the Financial Health Network, and other notable organizations. He taught and lectured at Georgetown University and Harvard University, and was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Associate Director for Research, Markets and Regulation from November 2010 to February 2020. In this episode, we cover such topics as: What the Center for Responsible Lending does Results of some of the Center's research What the Financial Health Network aims to do What lenders are doing to get better information and data to make better decisions The current problems with credit scores as indicators of credit-worthiness Where technology has (and hasn't) made the loan application process easier for consumers What lenders are looking for in cash flow data Improving inclusivity while still making responsible loans What defines financial health Advice on wealth building for Gen Z   Some Helpful Links: Center for Responsible Lending Financial Health Network Yodlee

Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, discusses the SEC's new approach to regulation under the Crypto Task Force. She details the commission's efforts to foster a healthy, regulated crypto market and the importance of cross-border cooperation in enforcement. Key Takeaways:  How the SEC is providing input for lawmakers on new regulations, and taking feedback from businesses in the industry Shifting from an enforcement-focused mindset to providing regulatory clarity The importance of regulatory frameworks that protect investors while still allowing innovation Ways to collaborate with the U.S. Congress on legislation Guest Bio: Hester M. Peirce was appointed by President Donald J. Trump to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and was sworn in on January 11, 2018. Earlier this year, Commissioner Peirce was designated as the leader of the SEC's Crypto Task Force. Prior to joining the SEC, Commissioner Peirce conducted research on the regulation of financial markets, and was a Senior Counsel on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Commissioner Peirce earned her bachelor's degree in Economics from Case Western Reserve University, and her JD from Yale Law School. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this Show: The Brave Technologist is here to shed light on the opportunities and challenges of emerging tech. To make it digestible, less scary, and more approachable for all! Join us as we embark on a mission to demystify artificial intelligence, challenge the status quo, and empower everyday people to embrace the digital revolution. Whether you're a tech enthusiast, a curious mind, or an industry professional, this podcast invites you to join the conversation and explore the future of AI together. The Brave Technologist Podcast is hosted by Luke Mulks, VP Business Operations at Brave Software—makers of the privacy-respecting Brave browser and Search engine, and now powering AI everywhere with the Brave Search API. Music by: Ari Dvorin Produced by: Sam Laliberte  

Artificial intelligence has been a frequent topic on Sinica in recent years — but usually through the lens of the two countries that have produced the leading models and companies: the United States and China. We've covered generative AI, national strategies, governance frameworks, and the geopolitical implications of AI leadership.This webinar, broadcast on the morning of August 14, broadens that lens to explore how other countries — and especially Ukraine — are approaching AI in the public sector. Around the world, governments are experimenting with AI well beyond chatbots and text generation: China's “City Brain” optimizes traffic, energy use, and public safety; U.S. agencies are streamlining services and automating benefits processing; and elsewhere, smart grids, predictive infrastructure planning, and AI-enabled e-governance are reshaping public administration. These projects reveal both the promise and the complexity of bringing AI into government — along with valid concerns over privacy, fairness, and inclusiveness.We'll look at what lessons Ukraine might draw from U.S. and Chinese experiences, the opportunities and challenges of adapting these practices, and the strategic risks of sourcing AI solutions from different providers — especially in the context of Ukraine's eventual postwar reconstruction.Joining us are three distinguished guests:Dmytro Yefremov, Board Member of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, with deep expertise in China's political and technological strategies and Ukraine's policy landscape.Wang Guan, Chairman of Learnable.ai in China, bringing extensive experience in AI applications for public administration and education.Karman Lucero, Associate Research Scholar and Senior Fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center, whose work focuses on Chinese law, governance, and the regulation of emerging technologies.Thanks to the Ukrainian Platform for Contemporary China, the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, and the Center for Slavic, Eurasian, and East European Studies at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill for organizing and sponsoring today's event. Special thanks to Vita Golod for putting together the panel and inviting me to moderate.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After earning a journalism degree at the University of Missouri, Strobel was awarded a Ford Foundation fellowship to study at Yale Law School, where he received a Master of Studies in Law degree. For fourteen years he was a journalist at the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, winning Illinois' top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from United Press International. He is a New York Times bestselling author whose books have sold millions of copies worldwide. We'll be talking today primarily about his new book Seeing the Supernatural: Investigating Angels, Demons, Mystical Dreams, Near-Death Encounters, and Other Mysteries of the Unseen World. For more Axis resources, go to axis.org.

Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by Miriam Ingber, associate dean of admissions & financial aid at Yale Law School, and Kristi Jobson, dean of admissions at Harvard Law School, to discuss what they're looking for in applicants. The Agenda:—Who even reviews applications these days?—The influx of applications—AI applications—Up in arms about the LSAT—The role of accommodations—Financial aid decisions Show Notes:—Ingber and Jobson's podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charles Sumner was from Boston, Massachusetts. He was a U.S. Senator for 23 years from 1851 to 1874. Sumner, an anti-slavery Republican, was brutally caned on the Senate floor by pro-slavery Democrats in 1856, during the lead-up to the Civil War. The attack, which almost killed Sumner, kept him out of the Senate for over 3 years. Sumner didn't marry until he was 55 years old, but his marriage to Alice Hooper ended in divorce seven years later. The 6' 4" Republican died of a heart attack in his home on March 11, 1874. Zaakir Tameez, a graduate of Yale Law School, reports in his new biography that Charles Sumner, in his opinion, was the conscious of a nation. In his introduction, Tameez writes: "This biography brings Sumner back to life, returning him to the place he deserves in the pantheon of American heroes. That said, this book is no hagiography." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charles Sumner was from Boston, Massachusetts. He was a U.S. Senator for 23 years from 1851 to 1874. Sumner, an anti-slavery Republican, was brutally caned on the Senate floor by pro-slavery Democrats in 1856, during the lead-up to the Civil War. The attack, which almost killed Sumner, kept him out of the Senate for over 3 years. Sumner didn't marry until he was 55 years old, but his marriage to Alice Hooper ended in divorce seven years later. The 6' 4" Republican died of a heart attack in his home on March 11, 1874. Zaakir Tameez, a graduate of Yale Law School, reports in his new biography that Charles Sumner, in his opinion, was the conscious of a nation. In his introduction, Tameez writes: "This biography brings Sumner back to life, returning him to the place he deserves in the pantheon of American heroes. That said, this book is no hagiography." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Arielle Galinsky—Harvard Kennedy School MPP candidate, JD candidate at Yale Law School, and advocate for aging with dignity—joins host Roger Loomis for a wide-ranging conversation on caregiving, aging, and how her generation sees the future of LTC financing.

Elizabeth Ross, from the Challenging Discrimination in the Law Project at Yale Law School, discusses touring the Valley State Prison law library with carceral studies scholar Elizabeth Hinton, All of Us or None journalist Alissa Moore, and Witness journalist Ghostwrite Mike. She also reflects on her experience at the inaugural Inside Knowledge Carceral Journalism Symposium and shares updates on the Yale Institute on Incarceration and Public Safety's Racial Justice Toolkit initiative—efforts that aim to bring meaningful access to data, law, and storytelling inside prison walls.

This Day in Legal History: Jane Matilda Bolin Appointed to BenchOn this day in 1939, Jane Matilda Bolin shattered a historic barrier when she was appointed by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia as a judge of the city's Domestic Relations Court. With that appointment, Bolin became the first Black woman to serve as a judge in the United States. A graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School—where she was the first Black woman to earn a law degree—Bolin entered a profession that had few women and even fewer people of color. Her appointment was more than symbolic; she used her position to advocate for children and families, ensuring fair treatment for all who appeared before her court.Judge Bolin served with distinction for four decades, retiring in 1979. During her tenure, she challenged policies that segregated children based on race in publicly funded childcare agencies and fought to assign probation officers without regard to ethnicity or religion. She approached family law not as a soft discipline, but as a critical area where justice, equity, and social stability intersect. Bolin's presence on the bench helped normalize the inclusion of women—and particularly women of color—in legal authority roles.Her quiet determination and policy reform work made lasting impacts in juvenile justice and child welfare. Despite the deep racial and gender bias of her era, Bolin held fast to a vision of a fairer legal system. Today, her legacy lives on in the increasing diversity of the judiciary and in reforms aimed at making family courts more humane and equitable. Her appointment marked the beginning of a broader movement toward inclusion in American legal institutions.Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal faces a significant procedural hurdle under Florida law, as legal experts point out he may not have followed the state's five-day pre-suit notice requirement for suing a media outlet. Trump filed the suit in Miami federal court, seeking at least $10 billion per defamation count over a July 17 article linking him to a birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein that allegedly included a sexually suggestive drawing and reference to shared secrets. The Journal has stood by its reporting and pledged to defend itself.Beyond the timing issue, Trump will also need to meet the demanding “actual malice” standard, which requires public figures to prove that a publication knowingly or recklessly published false information. Legal experts note that simply disputing a claim's truth doesn't suffice—Trump must show the Journal deliberately lied. The large monetary figure Trump is seeking appears to be more for public attention than legal plausibility, especially considering recent precedent like Fox News' $787.5 million settlement with Dominion and Alex Jones' $1.3 billion defamation judgment.Trump's suit follows a pattern of litigation against the press, with mixed outcomes. Courts have dismissed previous cases against CNN and The New York Times, while some outlets like ABC and Paramount have settled. Experts caution that while Trump's case may ultimately fail, his persistent use of defamation claims could chill press freedom due to the high cost of legal defense. The article also draws a parallel to former Trump ally Dan Bongino, whose defamation case was dismissed for a similar procedural misstep.Trump's Wall Street Journal suit over Epstein story faces timing hurdle | ReutersFormer Louisville police officer Brett Hankison was sentenced to 33 months in prison for violating Breonna Taylor's civil rights during the 2020 raid that led to her death. The sentence came despite a surprising, that is to say not at all surprising, request from the Trump Justice Department for only a one-day sentence. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings criticized that recommendation, calling it politically influenced and inconsistent with the gravity of the case. Although Hankison didn't fire the fatal shots, a federal jury convicted him in 2024 for endangering Taylor and her neighbors by firing blindly during the raid.Taylor, a Black woman, was killed when officers executed a no-knock warrant at her home. Her boyfriend, thinking the officers were intruders, legally fired a shot, prompting a hail of police gunfire. Her death, along with George Floyd's, fueled nationwide protests against police brutality.Hankison apologized in court, claiming he would have acted differently if he had known the warrant was flawed. The sentence was at the low end of federal guidelines but far exceeded what Trump's Justice Department sought. That sentencing memo was notably unsigned by career prosecutors and was submitted by political appointees, signaling a shift in the department's stance on police accountability.Taylor's family and boyfriend urged the court to impose the maximum penalty, calling the lenient recommendation an insult. Under President Biden, the Justice Department had reversed course, bringing charges in both the Taylor and Floyd cases to hold officers accountable.US judge sentences ex-police officer to 33 months for violating civil rights of Breonna Taylor | ReutersThe Justice Department has appealed a federal court ruling that struck down a directive from President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Jenner & Block. The appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled that Trump's March 25 order violated the firm's First Amendment rights. The directive had cited Jenner's past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a former partner involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation—an affiliation Trump viewed as politically adversarial.Judge Bates found the order to be retaliatory, noting it punished Jenner for its court work and lawyer associations. Trump's order was part of a broader pattern of targeting major law firms linked to perceived political opponents. Other actions under similar orders included attempts to cancel federal contracts, revoke security clearances, and block law firm personnel from federal buildings.Jenner & Block, represented by a legal team from Cooley, said it welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the lower court's ruling on appeal, defending its right to represent clients without political interference. The Justice Department's move mirrors similar appeals in cases involving Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey, signaling a continued legal defense of Trump actions against Big Law firms.DOJ Appeals Ruling for Jenner & Block in Trump Big Law BattleMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS's recent retreat from enforcing the Johnson Amendment through a consent decree signals a quiet dismantling of the traditional legal framework governing political speech by churches. The Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law, prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. While the IRS hasn't officially repealed the rule, its failure to enforce it undermines its authority and creates legal uncertainty. I point out that in today's media environment, religious speech and political messaging often blur, making enforcement even more complicated.I propose a clearer, more functional alternative: creating a new legal category called “Religious-Political Entity.” Under this designation, churches that wish to engage in explicit political activity could do so—provided they accept trade-offs like losing the ability to receive tax-deductible donations, disclosing their political spending, and separating charitable and campaign funds. This approach would preserve the rights of churches to speak on political issues aligned with their missions while drawing a firm line at partisan campaigning.The current ambiguity risks selective enforcement and invites abuse. Only Congress, not courts or ad hoc consent decrees, can craft the statutory structure needed to balance religious free speech with tax law integrity.New ‘Religious-Political Entity' Category Would Clear Up Tax Law This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner is a graduate of Barnard College and Yale Law School, where she was an editor on The Yale Law Journal, also receiving her M.A. in Political Science at Yale University. She was appointed to the United States District Court (D. Mass.) in 1994 by President Clinton and prior to 1994, Judge Gertner was a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer in Massachusetts. She retired from the federal bench in 2011 to join the faculty at Harvard Law School. Judge Gertner is the Managing Director of the MGH Center for Law Brain and Behavior. She was named one of “The Most Influential Lawyers of the Past 25 Years” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Judge Gertner has received numerous awards, including the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award. Additionally, Judge Gertner was a Commissioner on President Biden's Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, and has written and spoken widely on various legal issues, appearing as a keynote speaker, panelist or lecturer concerning civil rights, civil liberties, employment, criminal justice and procedural issues throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia. Her opinion column appears regularly in the Boston Globe and WBUR's Cognoscenti and occasionally the New York Times and the Washington Post. She also is a commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and WGBH's “Jim Braude and Margery Eagan” show. Join us for this insightful, informative conversation about Donald Trump's march towards autocracy; the consequential role of the Supreme Court; the Emil Bove confirmation hearing; the Epstein case; the threats against Fed Chair Jerome Powell; and the Harvard University lawsuit. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

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

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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