Discover how redistricting battles could shape the future of American democracy and the 2026 midterm elections. Professor Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, breaks down the Texas redistricting controversy, the mechanics of gerrymandering, and the legal and political standoff between Democrats and Republicans—revealing the high-stakes implications for voters, representation, and the balance of power.

As the November 2026 mid-term elections inch closer and closer, the redistricting of states are at the forefront of controversy. President Trump created a political firestorm when he asked Governor Abbott & Texas Republicans to redraw voting maps that would add  five more congressional seats for the GOP. This new map targeted Democratic U.S. House members in the Austin, Dallas, and Houston metro areas and in South Texas.

In protest, Texas Democrat state representatives fled Texas, hopped a plane to a few Blue states, and refused to vote on the proposed map.  On August 18th, the Democrats returned to the Capitol, after Governor Abbott took legal action against them, but not without making their mark and putting a spotlight on redistricting.

In response to the political chaos in Texas, Governor of California, Gavin Newson, had his own strategy in mind, by proposing California congressional maps, which would add five Democratic seats, offsetting Texas gains.

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins returning guest Professor Ned Foley,  Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law & Director of Election Law at The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law . Craig & Ned discuss the recent Texas redistricting controversy, gerrymanderying, the current standoff between Democrats and Republicans, legalities, and how all of this could impact the 2026 midterm elections.

Mentioned in this Episode:

Common Ground Democracy

Gain expert legal insights and historical perspective as Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky joins Lawyer 2 Lawyer’s 20th Anniversary episode. He examines the evolution of constitutional law, landmark SCOTUS rulings, civil rights cases, and the future of the U.S. Supreme Court — delivering analysis you won’t want to miss.

Way back in August of 2005 we started a little podcast called Coast to Coast with attorney Bob Ambrogi, led by our original Legal Talk Network founders, Lu Ann Reeb & Scott Hess. After issues with our original show name, we changed our name to Lawyer 2 Lawyer, and our podcasting adventure began! 

In the middle of our podcasting adventure, Adam Camras, CEO of Lawgical and now Legal Talk Network, took the reins and Lawyer 2 Lawyer continued to soar. Fast forward to today, after a multitude of amazing guests, controversial legal topics & SCOTUS decisions, and a number of presidents, this month we celebrate our 20th Anniversary of Lawyer 2 Lawyer!

To make this celebration even sweeter, we have invited our very first guest, Erwin Chemerinsky,  Dean of Berkeley Law, to join us. We will celebrate this milestone with Erwin, and you the audience, as we take a look at constitutional law then & now, landmark SCOTUS decisions over the years, and what the future holds.

Mentioned in this Episode:

Lawyer 2 Lawyer’s  Inaugural Show with Erwin Chemerinsky & Michael Greco

From VA Imposter Scams to “Free Piano” Scams, scammers will stop at nothing to lure you in and take your money. With the introduction of AI into our everyday lives, scammers have used this as a tool to deceive individuals, leaving victims penniless or even stealing their identity. So how do you identify a scammer? And is there anything legally you can do to stop them?

In this episode, Craig welcomes Steve Weisman, a nationally recognized expert in scams, identity theft, and cybersecurity as well as a lawyer, college professor, and prolific author. Together, Craig and Steve discuss scams, what to look out for, how to navigate through a scam, recovery, AI & scams, and how to protect yourself from these various scams.

On the 4th of July, extreme rainfall ripped through Central Texas, causing catastrophic flash flooding, leaving 119 dead and over 160 missing, with numbers climbing. The National Weather Service (NWS), which has recently experienced staffing cuts under DOGE & the Trump Administration, came under fire from local Texas officials who criticized the insufficient warnings ahead of the extreme weather.

In this episode, Craig welcomes Professor Jim Blackburn, environmental lawyer and co-director of the Severe Storm Prevention, Education and Evacuation from Disaster (SSPEED) Center at Rice University. Together, Craig and Jim discuss warnings, impact of staffing cuts, climate change, policy, and how we can protect ourselves from extreme weather.

The law of war is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war. With the Israel-Iran conflict raging on, and in a significant escalation, on June 21st, the United States retaliated against Iran by striking three of their nuclear sites. In response, Iran launched a strike against a U.S. air base in Qatar. After the strikes, President Trump promoted peace and announced a ceasefire, only to be met with more strikes and a continuance of the Israel-Iran conflict. So what is the law of war? And how does it apply to the current conflict between Iran, Israel, and now the United States? 

In this episode, Craig  welcomes back Rachel E. VanLandingham, Lt Col. (ret.), Co-Associate Dean of Research & Irwin R. Buchalter Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School. Together, Craig and Rachel discuss the law of war and the potential impact on our military, our country, and our relations with other countries. 

This Fourth of July, we're spotlighting one of the most iconic trials in American history. While the next regular Lawyer 2 Lawyer episode will drop on Monday, today we're revisiting one of America’s earliest and most pivotal legal battles: the Boston Massacre trial. This episode comes from Craig’s recent miniseries In Dispute, exclusively on Legal Talk Network.

----

When an unruly crowd of angry colonists attacked a small platoon of British soldiers in 1770, five Bostonians were killed and several others wounded. John Adams, a then-34-year-old lawyer who would eventually become the second president of the United States, took on a bold and unpopular defense of the soldiers and orchestrated their trials in a way that defied conventional thinking. To better understand the historical context of the Boston Massacre, what actually went down, the aftermath of the tragedy, and the surprising takeaway trial lawyers should have after hearing John Adams’ closing arguments, Attorney J. Craig Williams invites you to bundle up and relive the astounding altercation that’s still talked about to this day. 

LINKS:

SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR VOICE ACTORS:

Scott Well as John Adams

Alan Chudnow as Samuel Quincy

Skyler C. as Josiah Quincy

Alan Parsons as Captain Thomas Preston

Robert Mattson as Samuel Adams

Dan Ring as Daniel Calef

Patrick Correia as Richard Palmes

Kate Kenney Nutting as the female witness

Neil Harvey as the British Soldier

Brian Driesen as Benjamin Lee

Andrew Clark as Thomas Handaside Peck

Robert “Terry” Terelak as Ebenerzer Bridgham

Jud Pierce as Dr. John Jeffries

Christopher Rogers as John Hogdson

 In response to the recent protests in Los Angeles, sparked by ICE raids, President Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to L.A, and now 700 active duty Marines have joined, bypassing the authority of Governor Gavin Newsom and estimated to cost taxpayers an estimated $134 million. This stirred discussions over whether the President could use the Insurrection Act of 1807 & declare Martial law and whether these actions can be enforced. 

In this episode, Craig is joined by Rachel E. VanLandingham, Lt Col. (ret.), Co-Associate Dean of Research & Irwin R. Buchalter Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School.

Together, Craig and Rachel discuss the use of martial law & the Insurrection Act in response to protests, the military’s role, Newsom v. Trump,  and whether the deployment of  troops to Los Angeles constitutes martial law.

Mentioned in this Episode:

Newsom v. Trump

On January 20th, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14160, limiting birthright citizenship. This was met with backlash, as the constitutionality of the order was questioned. On May 15, 2025 SCOTUS heard oral arguments regarding a challenge to the order and a decision is expected to be released by late June or early July 2025. The courts have temporarily blocked the implementation of the Executive Order while constitutional challenges proceed.

In this episode, Craig is joined by David C. Baluarte, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and a Professor of Law at CUNY School of Law. Together, Craig and Dean Balaurte discuss Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, recent oral arguments before SCOTUS, the constitutional fight for birthright citizenship, and the potential impact of this upcoming decision.

Mentioned in this Episode:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Chief Justice John Roberts recently called out the Trump administration for their threats to impeach judges who have ruled against them.

In response to these threats to the judiciary, the Keep Our Republic’s Article III Coalition, composed of over twenty former federal district and circuit judges  appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, defended the federal judiciary, as political impeachment attempts against judges increase and the federal courts system face heightened scrutiny.

In this episode, Craig is joined by Chief Judge Paul R. Michel, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and member of Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition. Together, Craig and Judge Michel discuss the calls for impeachment of judges by the current administration, and how a coalition of judges is fighting back.

Mentioned in this Episode:

Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.   In 1802, founding father Thomas Jefferson, wrote a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Convention insisting that their legislature "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

On April 30th, 2025, SCOTUS heard arguments in  the consolidated cases of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond which could redefine the fine line between religion and government in public education. 

In this episode, Craig is joined by Frank Ravitch, professor of law & religion at Michigan State University's College of Law.  Together, Craig and Professor Ravitch delve into the significant legal topic of SCOTUS and the separation of church and state. Their discussion encompasses the details of these cases, Chief Justice Roberts' prior involvement in similar matters, the complex question of whether faith-based schools should be part of the public charter system, the importance of safeguarding religious freedom, and the potential ramifications of this forthcoming landmark decision.