Constitutional Issues Podcasts - Legal Talk Network

The Alien Enemies Act, Deportations, & Defying the Judiciary

Ally Kvidt — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:30:54 +0000

On March 15th, 2025, the Trump administration defied an oral order from U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg to stop the flights of Venezuelan migrants headed to a Salvadoran prison, after the administration used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport more than 200 alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador with no due process.

In this episode, Craig is joined by Virgil Wiebe, Professor of Law from the University of St. Thomas School of Law, as they discuss the recent deportation of Venezuelan migrants and federal Judge Boasberg’s ruling, blocking the Trump administration from deporting noncitizens. Craig & Virgil talk about the Alien Enemies Act, defying the judiciary, and next steps for individuals who are deported without due process.

Related Episodes

This Harvard Law prof thinks constitutional theory is a terrible way to pick a judge

Ally Kvidt — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 12:00:49 +0000

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off.

“We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn’t care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory.

In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance:

Longevity and age
Location in political time
Prior experience in public life
NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it’s common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn’t see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.)
Intellectual curiosity

In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short.

Empowering Young People to Reach Their Potential with Cathy Sakimura

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 12:00:08 +0000

Cathy Sakimura has spent her entire professional life empowering young people, first as a youth organizer, then as the Deputy Director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and now as Executive Director of Legal Services for Children (LSC) in San Francisco. In this episode, Cathy describes why she has dedicated her life to serving children and families, how she manages the challenges, and what each of us can make a difference in a child’s life, including donating money to LSC because it lost its federal funding that allowed it to serve immigrant children in detention. https://secure.everyaction.com/cVYzZjzhqkC12TIE2v3q7A2

Trump’s Executive Orders, Legality, Litigation, and Impact

Ally Kvidt — Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:15:20 +0000

With a stroke of a pen, President Trump signed a record number of executive orders attempting to change the fabric of our nation, attempting to undo years of legislation, and challenge the Constitution of the United States. From birthright citizenship to the elimination of DEI programs, to a freeze on federal aid, these orders stand to impact millions.

In this episode, Craig is joined by Qasim Rashid, human rights lawyer, author, and a former Congressional candidate, as they spotlight Trump’s recent executive orders including: birthright citizenship, the elimination of DEI programs, and the freeze on federal aid. Craig & Qasim discuss reaction, the legality of these orders, the executive branch v. Congress, litigation, and the potential impact these orders could have on the people of our nation.

When should life sentences be overturned? Judge shares how he decides

Ally Kvidt — Wed, 08 Jan 2025 15:30:04 +0000

A federal judge’s new book is giving readers a rare inside glimpse at how a judge determines which prisoners deserve to have their sentences overturned.

In his memoir, Disrobed: An Inside Look at the Life and Work of a Federal Trial Judge, Judge Frederic Block introduced readers to his colorful life and career. In Crimes and Punishments: Entering the Mind of a Sentencing Judge, he explained the rationale judges use when deciding sentences, and the human toll it can take. And now, in A Second Chance: A Federal Judge Decides Who Deserves It, he’s shining a light on how judges consider resentencing and compassionate release.

Without the passage of a key federal law in 2018, A Second Chance would not have been written. A bipartisan piece of legislation signed by President Donald Trump and supported by the ABA, the First Step Act was one of the biggest criminal justice reforms in the past decade. Among its sentencing reforms, it allows federal judges to reconsider sentences given out during tough-on-crime crackdowns, and for prisoners to petition for compassionate release.

Block, who is a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, soon found himself asked to reconsider sentences under the First Step Act. In the book, he outlines the crimes and rehabilitations (or lack thereof) of six federal prisoners. From a former police officer who assaulted an innocent Haitian immigrant to a trio of mobsters, Block selected an array that represents the types of cases he’s being asked to consider. Later in the book, he reveals the fate of each—whether life sentences were overturned or unrepentant prisoners were returned to their cells.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Block tells ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles how his own views on sentencing have changed since he ascended to the bench in the 1990s. In a case that made the news after A Second Chance went to press, Block overturned a sentence he gave out 27 years ago, during his second year on the bench. Block had imposed a quintuple life sentence on Walter Johnson after the man was convicted of robbery, cocaine possession and witness tampering. At 61, Johnson has now been released from prison, and Block discusses that decision in the episode.

Block sees a moral imperative for all strata of the justice system to work together to address mass incarceration. In addition to calling on judges to be open-minded when considering resentencing offenders, he encourages criminal defense attorneys to go through their lists of former clients to see whether any would be eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Most importantly, Block is calling upon citizens to lobby for sentencing reforms like the First Step Act on the state level, since the legislation only applies to federal prisoners. He points out that only about 200,000 of the approximately 2 million incarcerated Americans are federal prisoners; the vast majority are overseen by state courts.

Block also discusses the public response to President Joe Biden’s recent clemency decisions, and how collateral consequences have influenced his initial sentencing decisions.

Mass Deportations Under a Second Trump Presidency

Ally Kvidt — Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:00:02 +0000

With former President Trump slated to take office on January 20th, 2025, he has not wasted any time in his quest to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Trump recently appointed Former Acting U.S. ICE Director Tom Homan, as “border czar,” and confirmed his plan to declare a national emergency once in office, using the military for mass deportations.

In this episode, Craig is joined by Professor Ediberto Román, Director of Immigration and Citizenship Initiatives at the Florida International University College of Law. Craig & Ediberto discuss mass deportations under a second Trump presidency, the legal issues, and the potential impact on immigrants, industries, and our nation.

A Rejection of Democrats or a Rejection of Democracy?

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:00:46 +0000

Was 2024 a “historic” presidential election? Constitutional historians Lawrence Goldstone and Madiba K. Dennie join Jackie Gardina and Mitch Winick to discuss the context, concerns, and questions following the recent re-election of Donald Trump. One of the questions that many of us are asking is whether the recent presidential election was a rejection of Democrats or a broader rejection of Democracy?

The Legalities of Baseball: Fan Interference, Ball Ownership, & the Constitution

Ally Kvidt — Fri, 08 Nov 2024 12:00:33 +0000

Baseball. America’s favorite pastime. A wonderful game, with its share of controversy. On October 30th, 2024, the World Series wrapped with the LA Dodgers beating the NY Yankees 4-1 in the series. In the third game of the series, at Yankee Stadium, there was a controversial play involving LA Dodgers right fielder Mookie Betts and two New York Yankees fans, who tried to rip the ball out of the glove of Betts during a play- a prime example of fan interference. According to the Yankees, the fans were ejected from the game due to their “egregious and unacceptable physical contact.”

In this episode, Craig is joined by Dr. Paul Finkelman, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law to spotlight baseball, the law, and regulation. Craig & Paul take a look at everything from fan interference to who owns a ball. We will also discuss baseball and how it all relates to the Constitution, and the American legal system.

Mentioned in this episode:

Baseball and the American Legal Mind by by Spencer W. Waller, Neil B. Cohen, and Paul Finkelman

In Dispute on Legal Talk Network-The Chicago Black Sox Trial: How 8 Players Went From the Dugout to the Courtroom

Pharma Fallout: How Harrington v. Purdue Pharma Will Impact Bankruptcy Law

Ally Kvidt — Thu, 07 Nov 2024 12:00:07 +0000

In the wake of the incredible harm caused by the opioid crisis, the outcome of the Purdue Pharma case argued in the United States Supreme Court garnered national attention. What impacts might this case have in bankruptcy court proceedings in the future? To unpack the details and gain understanding of the bankruptcy issues at play, Rocky Dhir talks with attorneys Elias Yazbeck and Michael Wombacher. They discuss the backstory of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, the journey of the case through the courts, and insights into the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision, with a particular focus on the conflict over nonconsensual third-party releases.

Learn more about the case here: 23-124 Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (06/27/24)

Elias M. Yazbeck is an associate attorney in the Houston office of McGinnis Lochridge, LLP.

Michael Wombacher is an associate attorney at McDermott Will & Emery in Dallas, Texas.

Michael represented the Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Robertshaw case: Case number: 8:23-bk-80004 – Ebix, Inc. – Texas Northern Bankruptcy Court.

‘Watchdogs’ author has no regrets about choosing civil service over the NBA

Ally Kvidt — Wed, 06 Nov 2024 12:00:35 +0000

Glenn Fine’s career-long crusade against corruption might have its roots in his college days. As a point guard for the Harvard basketball team, Fine had his personal best game on Dec. 16, 1978, the same day he interviewed for–and received–a Rhodes scholarship. He put up 19 points against Boston College, including eight steals, and the team nearly eeked out a win against the favored Boston players. A remarkable day.

What Fine would later discover was that mobsters had bribed Boston College players to play worse to keep the game tight and not cover the point spread. Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke–later portrayed by Ray Liotta and Robert De Niro in the movie Goodfellas were part of the point-shaving scheme.

Fine would later be drafted in the 10th round of the NBA draft by the San Antonio Spurs, but it was the anti-corruption law that stuck, not basketball.

Fine took a job out of law school as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., and joined the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice in 1995. He would go on to serve as Inspector General at the DOJ from 2000 to 2011, then at the Department of Defense from 2015 until 2020. He was one of the five inspectors general fired by then-President Donald Trump in what the Washington Post referred to as the “slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general.”

But what do inspectors general do? It’s a question Fine wants to answer with his book, Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Fine and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss the function, history and importance of the position, along with ways Fine believes government oversight can be improved.

As of the book’s publication in 2024, there are 74 inspector general offices at the federal level, with more than 14,000 employees. As the IG for the Department of Defense, Fine oversaw the largest office, with some 1,700 employees. Inspectors general conduct independent, non-partisan oversight investigations into waste, fraud, misconduct and best practices, and deliver their reports and recommendations to Congress and the agencies involved. The IGs cannot enforce the adoption of recommendations, but their work acts as the “sunshine” for disinfection, Fine says.

One major recommendation Fine makes in Watchdogs is that an inspector general be established for the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, who could perhaps file their reports to the chief justice or the head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Fine points to judicial ethics concerns and polls finding public trust in the Supreme Court at historic lows, and argues one way to increase public trust is through the transparency provided by an inspector general.

Also in this episode, Fine offers advice for anyone considering a career in public service. Rawles and Fine discuss stories of his own investigations, including evaluating the claims of a whistleblowing scientist at the FBI laboratory and looking into how the infamous double-agent spy Robert Hanssen was able to fool his FBI superiors and pass intel to Soviets and Russians.

The Future of the Legal Profession Impacts Democracy with Ray Brescia

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 05 Nov 2024 12:00:46 +0000

Since colonial days, the legal profession has been proud of its role in the founding of the republic, the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and the defense of democracy and the rule of law. However, the profession faces an existential crisis on which the American democratic experiment hinges, says law professor Ray Brescia, author of Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession. If attorney unethical behavior surrounding the 2020 election repeats without disciplinary repercussions in 2024 . . . democracy itself is at risk.

Meet the sheriffs who believe they are ‘The Highest Law in the Land’

Ally Kvidt — Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:30:50 +0000

The first image conjured in your mind by the word “sheriff” might be the protagonist of a Wild West movie or Robin Hood’s foe, the Sheriff of Nottingham. But unless you’re a resident of Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii and Rhode Island, there’s likely an elected law-enforcement official in your area who holds that title.

In The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy, lawyer and journalist Jessica Pishko takes a deep dive into the history of this position in American life, and at a far-right movement hoping to co-opt the role of sheriff to advance extreme conservative policies.

There are some 3,000 sheriffs in the United States, one per county (or county equivalent). In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Pishko and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss how the rural/urban divide impacts the demographics of sheriffs. Ninety-seven percent of the land area in the United States is considered rural, but only 20% of the people live in those rural areas. In the 2020 census, Greene County, Alabama, had 7,730 residents and one sheriff. Cook County, Illinois, which contains the city of Chicago, had 5,275,541 residents and one sheriff. This leads to a larger proportion of sheriffs representing a rural and more conservative demographic, Pishko says.

Pishko explains the “constitutional sheriff” movement, including its similarities to other fringe movements like the sovereign citizens. Adherents claim that sheriffs alone have the power to interpret how the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments should be enforced in their counties. They claim that state governments, the federal government, the president and the U.S. Supreme Court have no power over sheriffs, and that as elected officials, sheriffs are answerable only to their constituents.

In this episode, Pishko also describes the large role sheriffs have in incarcerations, how their enforcement powers differ or overlap with police, and what disciplinary or oversight measures are available when a sheriff abuses their office. Pishko and Rawles also discuss the roles sheriffs might have in local elections, and whether they might have an impact on the 2024 presidential election.

How Much Power Vice Presidents Really Have & Why JD Vance’s Comments Are Alarming Lawyers

Ally Kvidt — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:00:53 +0000

The role of the Vice President of the United States is an important one, but what actual power does it hold? Recently, vice president candidate JD Vance spoke publicly about the power of the vice presidency, the role of presiding over the electoral count as President of the Senate, and what he would have done if he was in former Vice President Mike Pence’s shoes on January 6th 2021.

In this episode, Craig is joined by Matthew Seligman, a fellow at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, as they discuss the power of the vice presidency, the presiding role over the electoral count, and clarify the role of the vice presidency.

The Return of Legal Vigilantism with David Noll and Jon Michaels

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 01 Oct 2024 11:00:35 +0000

David Noll and Jon Michaels, authors of Vigilante Nation, discuss the reemergence of state-supported vigilantism. Noll and Michaels explain the vigilante methods, from anti-abortion bounties to book bans to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. They also provide a path forward, outlining what needs to be done to stop these efforts.

The Supreme Court is a liberal body–when it comes to legal writing

Ally Kvidt — Wed, 25 Sep 2024 11:00:31 +0000

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma.

As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn’t necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style.

For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia’s tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can’t, don’t, shouldn’t were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says.

The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants’ gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”

The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

Survey Finds Americans Lack Knowledge About Civil Legal Issues

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:00:39 +0000

Experts discuss the findings from a new survey on Americans’ knowledge of civil legal issues on Talk Justice. The recent survey of more than 2,000 Americans was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of LSC. It revealed widespread misconceptions about civil legal rights, and that many people do not reach out for help with their civil legal problems.

Yes! The Constitution Allows Changes to the Supreme Court – and Other Surprises with Lawrence Goldstone

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 11:00:02 +0000

Award-winning author and historian Lawrence Goldstone explains why what the Constitution does not say – was intentional – so that democracy can evolve. According to Goldstone, author of “Imperfect Union: How Errors of Omission Threaten Constitutional Democracy”, changing the Supreme Court, protecting voting rights, defining the Second Amendment, and maintaining the balance of power between state and federal government are intended to be the responsibilities of voters, not the government or the courts.

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order & the Impact on the Homeless

Ally Kvidt — Fri, 02 Aug 2024 11:00:11 +0000

On July 25, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state officials to start removing homeless encampments across the state. This follows last month’s SCOTUS ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, where the high court ruled that they will allow cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces. According to a 2023 homelessness assessment report to Congress from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, California has the largest homeless population in the nation with more than 180,000 people out on the streets.

In this episode, Craig is joined by returning guest Gary Blasi, Professor of Law Emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, as they discuss Governor Newsom’s executive order for removal of homeless encampments in California. Craig & Gary discuss the order, the recent SCOTUS decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, and the potential impact this could have on the homeless community.

Mentioned in this episode:

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order on Encampments

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Scotus Ruling

The Legal Issues Surrounding Homelessness with Gary Blasi & Breanne Schuster on Lawyer2Lawyer

The Ten Commandments, Classrooms, & the Constitution

Ally Kvidt — Fri, 19 Jul 2024 15:00:25 +0000

The separation of church and state has always been a contentious topic in political circles. Now more than ever, we are seeing religion & our government collide in our classrooms and before our Supreme Court. On June 19, 2024, Louisiana governor Jeff Landry signed into law legislation requiring a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in “large, easily readable font” in all public classrooms, from kindergarten to state-funded universities.

In this episode, Craig is joined by Rebecca S. Markert, Vice President and Legal Director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as they discuss Louisiana’s Ten Commandments classroom law, the separation of church and state, and what this could mean for classrooms across the country.

Mentioned in this episode:

We Dissent Podcast

Justice Department Press Release on DOJ v. Live Nation-Ticketmaster Lawsuit

‘The Originalism Trap’ author wants to see originalism dead, dead, dead

Ally Kvidt — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:00:50 +0000

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.

In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been.

The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

“Despite originalism’s reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it’s more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn’t a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution’s drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).”

In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can’t fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments’ radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can’t be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap.

While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.

In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people’s ability to participate in the country’s political, economic and social life.”

Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties.

“Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Constitutional Equal Rights – the Time is NOW! with Katherine Spillar

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 11:00:41 +0000

Kathy Spillar, Executive Director of Feminist Majority Foundation and Executive Editor of MS Magazine joins SideBar to discuss why ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is an essential legal tool to guarantee women’s rights. Ratification of the ERA would constitutionally prohibit sex discrimination, recognize systemic inequities across different groups of people, and uplift historically marginalized people to achieve true equality and justice.

When states’ rights and healthcare access clash

Ally Kvidt — Wed, 15 May 2024 21:30:34 +0000

From COVID-19 response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the results of 50 states having individual approaches to public health, medical outcomes and healthcare access raise troubling questions. A husband-and-wife team of University of Utah professors dig into the ethics of the American healthcare system in States of Health: The Ethics and Consequences of Policy Variation in a Federal System.

Leslie P. Francis is a professor of law and philosophy with a background in bioethics, and John G. Francis is a professor of political science with a focus on European comparative politics, federalism and comparative regulatory policy. The spouses had partnered on three previous books together. When looking for their next project, they decided to examine the consequences of states opting out of Medicaid expansion and what power federalism could have in protecting American citizens’ health. But soon more news events and landmark cases expanded their focus.

The result is States of Health. The book examines the tensions between state and federal powers in a number of areas, including reproductive rights; gender-affirming care; medical marijuana; public health and pandemics; right-to-try laws; patient confidentiality; and care quality and life expectancies.

In this episode of The Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles speaks with the Francises about their collaborative writing process, and what conclusions they have drawn about the benefits of federalism and states’ rights.

The Francises argue that since it is the federal government that determines citizenship and census decisions, state differences go too far when they make “basic decisions about who counts at all, and what it means to count.” They add, “Movement is a critical aspect of who counts: the ability to come and go, or to leave one state more permanently for another.” The Francises argue that freedom of movement for the purpose of medical treatment is crucial for patients, but also point out when states control licensure for medical providers, that too can restrict freedom of movement.

The value of 50 individual laboratories of democracy can be appealing to a scientific mind. But at what point can it be argued in the healthcare space that a federal government needs to step in, if the outcomes in some of those laboratories are decreased lifespans and higher mortality?

How Women Influenced the Constitution with Mary Sarah Bilder

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:00:29 +0000

Law Professor Mary Sarah Bilder discusses the amazing story of Eliza Harriot, a rare female public lecturer who delivered a University of Pennsylvania program attended by George Washington as he met in Philadelphia with delegates to draft the US Constitution. Harriot’s performance likely inspired the gender-neutral language of the Constitution and her advocacy inspired countless young women to consider a college education and fight back against exclusions based on sex, gender, and race.

We (Who Are Not) the People: Interpreting the Undemocratic Constitution with Milligan and Ross

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:00:59 +0000

Law Professors Joy Milligan and Bertrall Ross discuss how we should interpret a Constitution that was not written for or drafted by “We the People”. The original constitution excluded women and racial minorities. The drafters and the commentators of the period were exclusively white men. Many of the subsequent amendments were adopted under “undemocratic” conditions and interpreted by courts that did not fairly reflect the population then, or now. However, there is evidence that the language and intent of the drafters was to leave “space” for future interpretation. Milligan and Ross join SideBar to promote the proposition that “We the People” will only be protected by the Constitution if the “history and tradition” of ALL the people are considered in Supreme Court interpretations.

The Best Beloved Thing is Justice! with Lisa Kloppenberg

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:00:39 +0000

Professor and Dean Emerita Lisa Kloppenberg, author of The Best Beloved Thing is Justice: The Life of Dorothy Wright Nelson, discusses her mentor, colleague, and friend. Judge Nelson was a true trailblazer for women in the legal profession. She was one of only two women in her class at the UCLA School of Law and one of the first 14 female tenure-track law professors in the United States. She became one of the first women to lead an American law school as Dean of USC Gould School of Law and later became a distinguished jurist on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. An inspiring story shared by a nationally renowned scholar in her own right, Santa Clara University School of Law Professor and Dean Emerita Lisa Kloppenberg.

Why Do We (Still) Fail to Respect Women Under the Constitution? with Julie Suk

Ally Kvidt — Tue, 01 Aug 2023 11:00:49 +0000

Professor Julie Suk, author of After Misogyny: How the Law Fails Women and What to Do About It, discusses the legal and economic framework in the United States that fails to fairly recognize and value women’s work. Unfortunately, the U.S. remains a leader in unequal pay, no pay, inadequate support for childcare, healthcare, and social services, and irregular parental leave policies and protections. Professor Julie Suk explains how other countries have enacted constitutional protections and inclusive lawmaking processes that result in more equitable outcomes for women that result in benefits to all members of society. Professor Suk challenges us to consider correcting deficiencies in our federal constitution that would enhance equality, improve the economy, and enrich our democracy.

Lady Justice with Dahlia Lithwick (part 2)

Legal Talk Network — Sat, 07 Jan 2023 12:15:59 +0000

Dahlia Lithwick and the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court: In Part II of our wide-ranging conversation with Dahlia Lithwick, we move from discussing the lawyers in her book, Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the critical role lawyers play in our society.

Lady Justice with Dahlia Lithwick (part 1)

Legal Talk Network — Sat, 07 Jan 2023 12:05:55 +0000

Dahlia Lithwick, award-winning lawyer, author, commentator, and podcaster reminds us that we all have a role to play in protecting our rights. Her book, “Lady Justice”, celebrates the important role that women lawyers have played in pursuing justice and equality. She reminds us that we each need to step up, educate ourselves on the issues, and do the hard work necessary to achieve change. In Lithwick’s career, she went from a position of great power and authority reporting on the Supreme Court from the inside . . . to the role of advocate and commentator speaking truth to power from the outside through her keen observations about the U.S. Supreme Court and its ideological agenda.

The Legitimacy of SCOTUS

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 14 Oct 2022 11:00:46 +0000

Last month at a judicial conference in Colorado Springs, two judges from the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interviewed Chief Justice John Roberts on all things SCOTUS, in which he decried attacks on the court’s legitimacy following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling. Roberts said “If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle. You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate decision is…”

In a later response to Roberts comments, Justice Elena Kagan declared “Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves when they don’t act like courts” and “when they instead stray into places that look like politics.”

So does the Supreme Court of the United States have a legitimacy problem? In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest Douglas Keith, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, as they spotlight the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Craig and Doug take a look at the public’s reaction to recent SCOTUS decisions, the justices reaction to a legitimacy problem in the High Court, and what the new term will bring.

SCOTUS & the Overturning of Roe v. Wade

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:00:04 +0000

On May 13th, 2022, we released an episode entitled SCOTUS & the Future of Roe v. Wade. At that time, a leaked draft opinion in the matter of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization indicated that the Court was preparing to overturn Roe. Our guest on that episode, Cary Franklin, spoke about the impact of the leak, the constitutional right to abortion, the role of stare decisis, and the anticipated impacts of overruling Roe v. Wade.

On Friday, June 24th, 2022, that leaked opinion became a reality. The U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed the half-century old precedent of Roe v. Wade, declaring that abortion is no longer a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Host Craig Williams joins returning guest, Cary Franklin, Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, to discuss SCOTUS’ recent ruling on abortion and the potential impact this could have on the nation, as well as the ramifications for our highest court; specifically, its politics, its approval rating, and its trajectory.

SCOTUS & the Future of Roe v. Wade

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 13 May 2022 16:25:41 +0000

It has been nearly fifty years since the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade established that the Constitution protects a woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion. But in the last two weeks, the issue has once again become the center of nationwide controversy as a leaked draft opinion in the matter of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization indicates the Court is prepared to overturn Roe.

While questions remain as to how closely the final ruling will track the draft opinion, the public has wasted no time in expressing its anger, with those advocating for abortion staging protests and demonstrations, and those advocating against taking issue with the leak itself.

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Cary Franklin, Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, to discuss this recent leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn abortion rights, the constitutional right to abortion, the role of stare decisis, and the impact this will have if Roe v. Wade is overruled.

Special thanks to our sponsors, Posh Virtual Receptionists and Embroker.

Weed Ballots and the Constitution

Legal Talk Network — Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:05:02 +0000

Is it unconstitutional for the federal government to ban marijuana? In 2005, it wasn’t according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich. But with more states legalizing marijuana in the 2020 election, does that same analysis apply? Professor Douglas Berman from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law breaks it down.

Free Speech at Work?

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 20:00:00 +0000

Think you’re free to speak your mind at work? Before you give an oratory on sensible governance, tune in here. Grant Osborne from Ward and Smith explains free speech in the workplace and the 1st Amendment. {Spoiler}… Your level of free speech can depend on who you work for.

The Voting Rights Edition

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:35:39 +0000

In this special 2020 election edition of @theBar, host Jonathan Amarilio and co-host Chastidy Burns are joined by John Cusick, Litigation Fellow at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), for a discussion about the current state of voting rights, in the courts and at the polls, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder eliminated the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Special thanks to our sponsors, CourtFiling.net.

Banning TikTok and WeChat

Legal Talk Network — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:00:51 +0000

Every day brings us closer to the removal of TikTok and WeChat. Or so we think? What does this mean and should we care? George Grammas from Squire Patton Boggs tells us all about it.

Thank you to our sponsor ClioCloudConference.com.

RBG, Judge Amy Coney Barrett & the Impact on SCOTUS

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:30:46 +0000

On September 18th, 2020, we lost a powerhouse on the Supreme Court. An advocate, a fighter for women’s rights, and a trailblazer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away leaving behind a huge legacy, in addition to an empty seat on the Supreme Court.

With less than two months before Election Day, controversy was sparked between republicans and democrats when President Trump nominated federal appellate judge and Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett, known as a conservative judge and a former clerk for Justice Scalia, to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat.

On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Deborah Pearlstein, professor of constitutional and international law and co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy at Cardozo School of Law, to discuss the latest on SCOTUS, the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her legacy, the controversy surrounding President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in an election year, and the potential impact on Roe v. Wade, healthcare and the High Court.

Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception.

Voter Fraud and Vulnerabilities of Mail-In Ballots

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:00:22 +0000

Ilya Shapiro from the CATO Institute provides insights on the integrity of our voting system as well as points out vulnerability with mail-in voting for the 2020 election.

The 15th and 19th Amendments: Looking Back and Looking Forward

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:45:55 +0000

With the 150th anniversary of the 15th amendment and the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment both falling in 2020, host Rocky Dhir welcomes Paul Stafford, author of the recently published article “Men, Their Rights and Nothing More; Women, Their Rights and Nothing Less” to discuss the history of these amendments, how their histories intertwine, and the social challenges that existed then and that exist now. They discuss what led Paul to write his article for the predominantly legal audience of the Texas Bar Journal, and Paul shares his personal thoughts on the political activism going on today.

Celebrating the Upcoming 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment

Legal Talk Network — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:00:21 +0000

On August 26, 1920, nearly two years after President Woodrow Wilson gave a speech before Congress in support of guaranteeing women the right to vote, Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified that the 19th Amendment had become a part of the Constitution, and women could no longer be denied their vote.

While the amendment had been introduced to congress nearly forty years earlier and faced many challenges, women like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Ida B. Wells-Barnett never stopped fighting and pushed for equality in the voting booth.

On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by historian Ellen Carol DuBois, author of the book, Suffrage: Women’s Long Battle for the Vote and law professor Paula A. Monopoli, author of the upcoming book, Constitutional Orphan: Gender Equality and the Nineteenth Amendment. Ellen and Paula discuss the upcoming 100th Anniversary of the official adoption of the 19th Amendment, take a look at the history of women fighting for voting rights, spotlight the women of the suffrage movement, and discuss the impact voting women will have on the upcoming election.

Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception.

The Scarlet A Edition

Legal Talk Network — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 23:39:43 +0000

At least one in four American women will have an abortion in her lifetime, and the Supreme Court deemed it a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade nearly five decades ago, yet the stigma is such that we’re unable to have a civil conversation about the topic. In this edition, co-hosts Jon Amarilio and Chastidy Burns are joined by Katie Watson, a lawyer, professor, bioethicist, and the author of “Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law and Politics of Ordinary Abortion.” Katie makes the argument that we need to start having real conversations about ordinary abortion because it impacts millions of Americans, and can help us unpack many other social issues, including civil rights, religion, socioeconomic stratification and more.

Special thanks to our sponsors, CourtFiling.net.

We need to talk about abortion, says author of ‘Scarlet A’

Legal Talk Network — Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:00:47 +0000

Three in 10 American women who are 45 or older have had an abortion, Katie Watson, author of “Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law & Politics of Ordinary Abortion,” tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles. For women 44 and younger, one in four are projected to have an abortion in their lifetime. Yet for all the fiery rhetoric about the legality of abortion, Watson–who teaches bioethics, medical humanities and constitutional law at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine–has found a reluctance by people to discuss their own personal experiences with abortion, or even the nuances of their views on its ethics. While the overwhelming majority of people feel comfortable claiming the labels of either “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” when she polls people about the legality and the morality of abortion at different stages of development, there’s a lot more nuance than those binary labels suggest. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Watson talks about ways to have productive discussions about abortion; the emerging areas of contention which could be coming before the Supreme Court; and why she thinks that doctors have been shouldering a disproportionate burden in advocating for reproductive rights and abortion access.

Crush

Legal Talk Network — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:00:41 +0000

The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 was an animal cruelty prevention law aimed at videos showing women in high heels crushing small animals. While the law took aim at these videos, it ended up being used to target Robert Stevens instead. United States v. Stevens is a landmark case that may be the most important First Amendment decision of the 21st Century so far, but not many people have heard of it. It centers around Robert Stevens, a pit bull enthusiast who was charged with violating the crush video law in March 2004. The case eventually led the Supreme Court to make an important clarification about how we decide what speech is protected under the First Amendment.

In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White examines United States v. Stevens and the question of whether the government can continually come to the Supreme Court with potential exceptions to the First Amendment. The episode features input from Marc Randazza, a nationally-known First Amendment and intellectual property attorney. It also examines other relevant cases including New York v. Ferber, a 1982 case in which the Supreme Court decided that the government could punish distribution of child pornography even if it didn’t meet the Miller test for obscenity.

Uncovering the secret history of how corporations gained their civil rights

Legal Talk Network — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:00:03 +0000

When we think of civil rights movements, the first to spring to mind might be the battles against African-American segregation or for women’s suffrage. But one of the longest, most successful–and least-known–of these movements in America has been made on behalf of corporations. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Prof. Adam Winkler, author of We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights, shares what he learned from his investigation into how corporations have achieved constitutional protections ranging from the right to sue and be sued, to individual rights like religious liberty protections and freedom of speech.

What can we learn from the history of interracial relationships in America?

Legal Talk Network — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 13:00:18 +0000

Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. But Richard and Mildred Loving were not the first American couple to love across race boundaries. The history of what we would now consider interracial relationships in America extends back to the first European explorations of the continent. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles speaks with Sheryll Cashin, a professor of law at Georgetown University and author of Loving: Interracial Intimacy in America and the Threat to White Supremacy. Cashin discusses how the concept of race was introduced in America; how the doctrine of white supremacy was used as a method to divide slaves and free blacks from indentured servants; how flimsy the rationale for racial classification was; and the stories of some men and women who ignored those barriers and formed relationships anyway. She also shares her thoughts on how a younger generation’s “cultural dexterity” could help battle the forces of racism and white supremacy.

The Controversial War on Drugs

Legal Talk Network — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:25:40 +0000

Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” claiming “America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse”. Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.

Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio, AppRiver, and PC Law.

Controversial Legislation in Women’s Health

Legal Talk Network — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:57:19 +0000

From the Obama Administration’s decision on female contraception coverage, to the Congressional hearing on women’s health featuring an all-male panel of witnesses, to the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke firestorm, legislation targeting women’s health is causing quite the political controversy across the country. Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney, Craig Williams, joins Attorney Shari Rendall, Director of Legislation and Public Policy for Concerned Women for America and Attorney Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel for Health and Reproductive Rights for the National Women’s Law Center, to discuss current legislation aimed at women’s issues, reaction from women’s groups and the present state of women’s rights.

Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio and Firm Manager.