On this episode, we take a profoundly hard look at the ethical landscape of criminal defense lawyering through the lens of a Pennsylvania-specific criminal post-conviction procedure called the Finley “No-Merit” letter.

With us for this discussion is an esteemed group of individuals from Phillips Black, a nonprofit public interest law practice dedicated to providing the highest quality of legal representation to incarcerated individuals in the United States sentenced to the severest penalties under law.

Joining us are two Phillips Black staff attorneys, Thomas Roberts and Elie Kirshner, both HarvardLaw graduates, as well as their colleagues, Yahya Moore and Stephen Lazar, both of whom were wrongfully convicted of second-degree murder, which, in Pennsylvania, meant that they were automatically sentenced to life without parole. Yahya was incarcerated for 27 years, and Stephen for 16, before both of their convictions and sentences were later vacated. Yahya and Stephen both now work as paralegals helping petitioners navigate post-conviction.

If you want to learn more about Finley letters after listening, you can check out Phillips Black’s comprehensive Finley Report at phillipsblack.org/finleyreport, or you can read Yahya and Thomas’s co-authored article about Finley letters published by the Harvard Law Review.

Today, we are excited to feature another current law student on the Podcast. Joining us is second year law student, Nicole Paredes-Cisneros.

Nicole is a junior staffer on the Administrative Law Review at American University Washington College of Law, and as part of her graduation requirements, has written an incredible paper discussing the regulatory landscape surrounding social media design, with a particular focus on “dark patterns.” As many of the social media giants face landmark trials on child safety, Nicole’s Comment is more relevant than ever.

On this episode, we are so grateful to be joined by Matt Pawa to discuss the intersection of Environmental and Administrative Law. There may be no better person in the field to have as our guest today: Matt is a pioneer of environmental litigation, having been involved in many of the nation’s most important environmental cases for over 25years.

Matt’s 13-year lawsuit against more than a dozen oil companies for polluting New Hampshire groundwater resulted in over $100 million in pre-trial settlements and a $236 million verdict against Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest verdict in state history. He also launched the first ever climate change tort case in the U.S. back in 2004, bringing an action against many of the largest coal burning power plants, allof which has contributed to Matt being widely recognized as the nation’s foremost expert on climate litigation against fossil fuel companies ever since.

Matt is also no stranger to rolling up his sleeves and keeping the Monkey Wrench spirit of the late, great Ed Abbey alive, noted by the dismissal of all criminal charges he obtained for climate protesters Ken Ward and Jay O’Hara in the Lobster Boat Blockade back in 2014—the case ended so emphatically that the district attorney issued a dramatic statement on the courthouse steps announcing he was dropping the charges and would join an upcoming climate march (pretty impressive stuff to say the least).

We also want to highlight two other great resources mentioned in this episode: First, go check out Matt’s own podcast, “Mother Earth,” – he is taking a break from it currently, but may return to it at any moment. and Second, we would like to highlight Hazel Rosenblum Sellers recent piece published in the Michigan Law Review entitled: “Good Cause for Goodness' Sake: A New Approach to Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking.”

On this episode we speak with Nancy Lewis about the wide world of Government Contracts. While on its face, government contracts may not sound like the most glamorous field of law,beneath the surface there is a complex, dynamic, and endlessly challenging landscape. These behind the scenes, unsung heroes, help negotiate and execute everything from major federal IT overhauls to defense contracts that impact national security. Nancy serves as the Assistant Solicitor and Branch Chief for Acquisitions and Intellectual Property at the U.S. Department of theInterior. A combat veteran and former Army JAG officer, she brings deep expertise from both military and civilian federal procurement. This episodewill explore bid protests, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (known as the FAR), and the evolving challenges agencies and contractors face in today's procurement environment.

Today, for the first time ever, we are excited to feature a current law student on the Podcast. Joining us is second-year law student, Jared Zwettler.

Jared is a junior staffer on the Administrative Law Review at American University Washington College of Law, and as part of his graduation requirements, has written an incredible paperdiscussing the Federal Railroad Administration, otherwise referred to as the “FRA.”

Specifically, Jared analyzed the FRAs recent action surrounding high speed rail in the U.S., with a particular focus on the California High Speed Rail Project.  This is a brief conversation with Jared about his paper, but if you are desiring more, please find a link to Jared’s Comment in the show notes.

My name is Elliott Hiller, and along with Cyrus Crevits, we are your hosts for this 7th season of A Hard Look.

This episode of A Hard Look dives into the regulation of cryptocurrency, one of the hottest and most complex topics in modern finance.

From the rise of digital assets to the challenges of oversight and enforcement, crypto is testing the boundaries of financial law and innovation. But how is the regulatory landscape evolving? What are the risks and opportunities of digital assets? And with the new administration’s stance on these assets being an about face from the Biden Administration, what does the future hold for cryptocurrency in the United States? Joining us to answer these questions, and many more, are Professors Gerard Comizio and Jerry Buckley.

Professor Comizio is the associate director of the Business Law Program at American University Washington College of Law, the director of the law school’s Digital Asset Law Project, and currently teaches one of the first digital asset law courses in the United States.

Professor Buckley is recognized as a thought leader in the field of financial services regulation and is a founding partner of Buckley LLP––the leading national financial services law firm that combined with Orrick in 2023. Professor Buckley also serves as an Adjunct Professor at American University Washington College of Law.

In this season's final installment of the Hard Look Series , we take a focused look back at the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency—not through the lens of news headlines or viral clips, but through the quieter, often more consequential corridors of administrative law. Professors Jennifer Selin and Chris Walker join us to reflect.

View the transcription here.

Show Notes:

• Presidential Documents on the Federal Register (Updated Daily)
• Congressional Research Service: “The Good Cause Exception to Notice and Comment Rulemaking: JudicialReview of Agency Action” (January 29, 2016)
• FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC
• The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7 of the U.S.Constitution)
• Presidential Action: Restoring Accountability toPolicy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce (January 20, 2025)
• The Hill: “Law Firms Divided Over Response to TrumpOrder” (March 25, 2025)
• Presidential Action: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies (February 18, 2025)
• SCOTUS Blog: “Justices Will Hear Arguments on Trump’sEffort to End Birthright Citizenship” (April 17, 2025)

More From Our Guests:

• Jennifer Selin, “Constraining the Executive Branch:Delegation, Agency Independence, and Congressional Design of Judicial Review”
• Chris Walker, “Congress and the Shifting Sands inAdministrative Law”

On this episode of A Hard Look, we examine the President’s power to remove independent agency officials. That’s right! We’re going all the way back to the 1935 landmark decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Helping us navigate this discussion is Daniel Wolff, Partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, and head of the firm’s administrative law practice. Tune in for an in-depth discussion on the future of executive authority and regulatory independence.

Show Notes:

Editorial Note: This episode was recorded in March 2025, and the status of any ongoing cases discussed may have changed since then.

Recommended Readings

• Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)

• Myers v. United States (1926)

• Morrison v. Olson (1988)

• Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)

• Trump v. Wilcox (2025)

This episode was produced by the Administrative Law Review Senior Technology Editor, Sophia Navedo-Quinones, and Technology Editor, Victoria Paul.

If you have any questions about this episode or the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or guest, please e-mail us at [email protected].

Visit our website:  https://administrativelawreview.org/podcast-a-hard-look/

On this episode of A Hard Look, we’re discussing the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright; the case that overruled the infamous Chevron Doctrine. Since last summer, there has been meaningful legal developments within lower circuits. Professor of Law and legal scholar, Cary Coglianese, joins us to discuss what—if any—indications these decisions mean for a post-Loper Bright landscape.(*)

* Editorial Note: At the time of recording, this episode referred to the article Professor Coglianese wrote with Professor Daniel E. Walters, “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright,” as “forthcoming.” This article has since been published and is now available online at the adminstrativelawreview.org.

The transcript of the episode can be found here or on our website.

Show Notes:

Listen to our pre-Loper Bright episode, where we interviewed Daniel M. Sullivan to discuss the critiques and weaknesses of Chevron doctrine, potential constitutional problems with judicial review of agency decisions, and what administrative law may look like after the decision. 

Read more:

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on SCOTUS Blog

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the Future of Agency Interpretations of Law by Congressional Research Service (Dec. 31, 2024)

• The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright by Cary Coglianese & Daniel E. Walters

How did a chaotic Taylor Swift ticket sale lead to DOJ filing a suit against the largest entertainment company in the world?  In yet another example of how administrative law touches our everyday lives, we examine the DOJ’s pursuit to exercise its enforcement powers by pursuing antitrust claims against Live Nation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster.  Attorney Reb Masel from Rebuttal Podcast, joins us to discuss the legal framework that grants DOJ enforcement power and the extent to which DOJ—and other agencies—can wield it.  Special thanks to ALR Staffers Linda Cullen, Peyton Kreuscher, and Maddie Haggard for their assistance with research and preparation for this episode.

The transcript of this episode can be found here.

Show Notes:

• Follow Reb Masel on Instagram and TikTok and her podcast on YouTube.  You can also listen to Rebuttal Podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

• Guide to Antitrust Law: The Enforces, The Federal Trade Commission’s Official Website

• Sam McCann, Everything You Need to Know About Consent Decrees, Vera (Aug. 30, 2023). 
• U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (2010-2020)         
• U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc and Ticketmaster L.L.C. (2024)