Send us a text

Buck v. Bell: The Supreme Court Case That Inspired Hitler’s Eugenics Nightmare. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that states could forcibly sterilize “undesirables” like Carrie Buck—a young woman falsely labeled “feeble-minded” for being poor and pregnant out of wedlock. Justice Holmes’ infamous line? “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” We unpack this dark chapter of American eugenics, how it greenlit 70,000+ forced sterilizations nationwide, and its chilling global ripple: Nazis modeled their 1933 sterilization law after it, citing Buck in Nuremberg defenses to justify 400,000 procedures and pave the way for the Holocaust. In plain English, discover the “science” that wasn’t, the human cost, and why this ruling—never overturned—still haunts reproductive rights today. Essential for law students, history buffs, or anyone asking: How did America export eugenics to Hitler?

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

They called it progress.

Thomas Edison called it science.

But when the Supreme Court gave its blessing, electricity became something else entirely — a state-sanctioned killer.

In this eerie Halloween edition of Law School in Plain English, Jeff pulls back the curtain on one of the most haunting legal moments in American history: when innovation met execution.

This is the story of how a courtroom turned the light of invention into the spark of death — and why the Justices believed it was humane.

We’ll unpack the real case behind the electric chair, the shocking public experiments that led up to it, and how law, morality, and fear collided in the name of “civilization.”

Because sometimes the law doesn’t just decide what’s legal — it decides what it means to be human.

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

You’ve probably heard the phrase, “Equal protection under the law.”

But what happens when the law looks fair on paper… and is used unfairly in real life?

In this episode, Jeff dives into one of the most overlooked Supreme Court cases in U.S. history — Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) — where a Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco stood up to a city ordinance that claimed to be “neutral,” but was anything but.

This story isn’t just a history lesson — it’s a Hidden Verdict brought into Law School in Plain English. Because behind every rule lawyers memorize, there’s a human story that shaped it.

We’ll break down how this one man’s fight redefined the meaning of fairness, equal protection, and what the Constitution really promises — all in plain, clear English.

🎧 The law isn’t just about statutes and citations — it’s about people. And sometimes, those people change everything.

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

You’re liable even if you did nothing wrong. Welcome to Strict Liability—the torts rule that says fault doesn’t matter. In this episode, we break down how owning a vicious dog, storing explosives, or making homemade fireworks can cost you big—even if you were careful. No negligence? No defense. From Rylands v. Fletcher to explosives, delivery drones, and pit bulls on the loose, we explain in plain English why strict liability exists, who it protects, and why it should make every business owner (and dog parent) sweat. Perfect for 1Ls cramming torts or anyone who’s ever said, “But it wasn’t my fault!”

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

In this episode, we move beyond theory and watch the law’s favorite imaginary character face real-life legal drama. We explore how courts decide what’s foreseeable, what behavior counts as reasonable, and what happens when someone says:

👉 “I didn’t think that would happen.”

You’ll learn:

• How juries decide what’s “normal” behavior
• Why texting and driving is a perfect case study in unreasonableness
• How lawyers build (and destroy) the Reasonable Person in court
• Why your 10-year-old chasing a soccer ball might be judged differently than your 40-year-old uncle
• Whether someone can be reasonable and still be legally liable

Plus: banana peels, glass vases, and that one sibling who always breaks things.

Law School In Plain English continues with simple, smart, and well designed episodes for real listeners (not just law students).

🎧 Subscribe, share, and review. The law isn’t just for lawyers anymore.

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

In this episode of Law School in Plain English: Torts, we dive into the world of the “Reasonable Person”—the unsung hero of legal liability.  But what happens when this paragon of predictably meets their chaotic counterpart, the Unreasonable Person?  Join us for an engaging, humorous exploration of fairness, responsibility, and what it really means to act “reasonably” in the eyes of the law.

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

What happens when someone wrongfully takes your property, and you decide to take matters into your own hands?  In this episode, we break down the tort defense of Recapture of Chattels.  Using relatable examples and a dash of humor, we’ll explore the legal boundaries of reclaiming stolen or misappropriated property.  Can you grab your stolen item back?  What if you’re wrong about who took it?  By the end, you’ll know when self-help crosses the line into trouble - and how the law views these tricky situations!

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

In this special extended episode, we take a deep dive into the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur—the legal principle that lets the facts ‘speak for themselves.’  Explore its origins in the famous falling-barrel case, Byrne v. Boadle, and its evolution through landmark decisions involving exploding soda bottles, surgical mishaps, and more. 

Whether you’re curious about how courts decide negligence without direct evidence or want to understand the modern challenges this doctrine faces, this episode offers an engaging and comprehensive breakdown.  Tune in to discover how Res Ipsa applies to everything from everyday accidents to cutting-edge technology!

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

In this episode, we explore the defense of Necessity — when breaking the rules is legally justified to prevent greater harm.  From stormy backyard emergencies to real-world cases like docked ships, we break down the difference between Public and Private Necessity and how they apply in the law.  Tune in to learn how far you can go in an emergency without crossing the legal line.

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

Send us a text

In this episode, we dive into the defense of Consent - what it means to give permission, when it can be revoked, and how long it lasts.  From backyard dodgeball to medical procedures, we break down the legal boundaries of Consent in playful and real-world scenarios.  By the end, you’ll understand how the law balances permission and accountability!

Support the show

Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.