The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, better known as the SAVE America Act, is a 2026 bill designed to tighten federal election integrity by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration, and photo proof when voting in federal elections. Recently passed by the House, this bill has created quite the stir, igniting debates in the Senate with bipartisan opposition to registering and voting through documentation requirements.

So if passed, will the SAVE America Act change elections going forward? And how will this impact who votes in future elections? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins  John J. Martin, Assistant Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University School of Law, as they explore the SAVE America Act and voter ID requirements.  Craig & John discuss the origin, constitutionality, and potential impact on the people of the United States.

Mentioned in this Episode:

Citizenship Voting Requirement in SAVE America Act Has No Basis in the Constitution – and Ignores Precedent that Only States Decide Who Gets to Vote by John J. Martin

The legal profession can be a stressful one. Whether its workload, the demands of clients, financial pressure or long days and nights, it can be overwhelming to many. 

So what kind of toll is this stress having on lawyers?  And where can you get help?

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Attorney Jason Ward, public speaker on mental wellness and addiction, as they discuss mental health & the legal profession. Craig & Jason talk about the stressors that come with the profession, the impact, how to alleviate the day-to-day stress of the occupation, and where to get help. 

Mentioned in this Episode:

Litigation Radio: The Toll It Takes: Litigation, Substance Abuse, And (Maybe) You

ABA’s Well Being Toolkit

The recent fatal shootings of Renee Good & Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Minnesota shook the nation and the world. In recent months, the tactics and actions of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE,  have reached a boiling point in communities and have come under scrutiny for the treatment of civilians. In response, many  have taken to the streets to protest.

With the Trump administration's mission to deport dangerous criminals, a recent internal ICE policy specifically allowed agents to go door to door without a judicial warrant, in direct contradiction to the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures by the government). As protestors lined the streets, an individual’s First Amendment rights—freedom of speech and assembly in particular—were also under attack. 

Are we currently witnessing the shredding of the U.S Constitution and the rule of law?  Will there be investigations into the actions of ICE? Will the legislative branch step in? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins David Cole, Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown Law and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Craig & David discuss the legalities behind the actions of ICE, the constitutional rights of individuals who encounter ICE agents, the recent tragedies in Minnesota surrounding ICE agents and civilians, and the overall impact these actions are having on the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.

On January 3, 2026, the U.S. military captured Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro and his wife and brought them back  to the United States where they faced criminal charges related to drug trafficking. Many questioned the legality of the invasion and a policy from the 1800s called the Monroe Doctrine was being alluded to by the current administration.  Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine nicknamed 

“The Donroe Doctrine” by Trump himself, was originally a policy created back in 1823 by then-President James Monroe to oppose European interference in the Western Hemisphere. Trump reinvoked Monroe in his decision to take over Venezuela and publicly made threats to take over other countries.

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Claire Finkelstein, Professor of National Security Law and faculty director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL) at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Craig & Claire discuss international law, the Monroe Doctrine, the legality  of the Venezuela invasion, and the threats from the Trump administration of possible takeovers of other countries.

Mentioned in this Episode:

The Monroe Doctrine

In Dispute: Why John Adams Defended the British Soldiers During the Boston Massacre Trials

On December 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the landmark copyright case, Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. 

This case centers on whether Cox, an internet service provider, can be held legally liable for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers when those users downloaded and shared thousands of copyrighted songs without permission. 

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Professor Christopher Jon Sprigman, Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law, 

as they spotlight Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment.

Craig & Chris discuss this SCOTUS case, oral arguments, the friend-of-the-court brief, copyright law, and the potential impact of a future ruling.

Mentioned in this Episode:

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment Brief of Amici Curiae ACLU et al. in Support of Petitioners

Last month, six Democrat lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, released a controversial video urging service members to refuse illegal orders set forth by the current administration. In response, the Defense Department said it would investigate these lawmakers, while President Donald Trump chimed in accusing them of  “seditious behavior,” a charge “punishable by death.

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Professor Victor M. Hansen as they spotlight the controversy over the "illegal orders"video.  Craig & Victor discuss what constitutes illegal orders in the military, the FBI/DOD investigation into those involved in the video, and military code and law.

Recently, in the state of North Carolina, a judge ordered a Tik Tok influencer to pay 1.75 million for destroying her manager’s marriage citing a common law tort called  alienation of affection. Alienation of affection lawsuits are still legal in a few states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Professor Jill Hasday from the University of Minnesota Law School, as they spotlight the tort of alienation of affection.  Craig & Jill discuss litigation, states that recognize alienation of affection, and the law's treatment of intimate deception.

The actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, have divided the country. Many believe that the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration and violent crime is making the country safer. On the other side, there has been a resistance across the United States with communities standing up to ICE’s intimidating tactics, which include anything from unmarked vehicles, masks concealing ICE agents' identities, to arrests outside courtrooms, and a lack of due process. This has led to controversy and legal challenges. 

So do ICE’s actions go too far? Or is ICE making our country a safer place to live? And are these ICE raids protected and legal? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Professor Daniel Kanstroom, founder of the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic, as they spotlight immigration law and ICE. Craig & Dan take a look at the legalities behind the actions of ICE, the constitutionality of ICE raids, the lack of due process, and the impact ICE is having on citizens and non-citizens of the United States.

This Halloween, Lawyer 2 Lawyer is stepping back into the courtroom of 1692 with a special episode of In Dispute, Craig’s miniseries on landmark trials throughout history. In this haunting installment, Craig revisits the Salem witch trials, where hysteria ruled and justice vanished in the shadows.

-----

In 1692, claims of satanic rituals, ghosts, and seemingly “afflicted” children stirred puritanical imaginations, deepened by petty rifts between powerful families and rival congregations in Salem Village (now known as Danvers, Massachusetts). In response to the growing number of citizen complaints and imprisonments, Massachusetts Bay Colony Governor William Phips appointed a man with no legal training to preside over the trials. More than a dozen poor decisions and questionable verdicts later, townspeople became all too familiar with death sentences by hanging. Hear the full story unravel with voiceover reenactments, historical context and present-day reflection from Attorney J. Craig Williams.  LINKS:

 SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR VOICE ACTORS:

Troy Starr as John Hathorne

Doreen Wiley as Sarah Good

Kevin McGrath as Cotton Mather

Dave Scriven-Young as Stephen Sewell

Evan Dicharry as Judge

Georgia Well as Bridgett Bishop

In a landmark ruling  back in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio,  that it is constitutional for police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Over the years this ruling has been criticized, with many saying that this decision leads to an abuse of power by police and racial profiling. 

On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Aliza Hochman Bloom, assistant professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law, as they spotlight traffic criminal law. Craig & Aliza take a look at traffic stops, Terry stops (Terry v. Ohio), the constitutionality of policing, the 4th Amendment, and what rights an individual has when pulled over by law enforcement.

Mentioned in this Episode:

Terry V. Ohio