When a single federal judge can freeze a president’s policy nationwide, it raises big questions about checks and balances and democratic accountability. That’s one reason nationwide injunctions have become central to some of today’s most consequential legal battles—and why the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA matters.

At a live recording, Stanford Legal host Diego Zambrano sat down with Professor Mila Sohoni, one of the country’s leading scholars on federal courts and administrative law, for a conversation that moved from President Trump’s day-one birthright-citizenship order to the Court’s ruling in CASA, including how lower courts are now navigating the decision’s new, but murky, constraints on nationwide injunctions.

Sohoni breaks the protection these injunctions can offer when sweeping executive actions threaten millions, the risks of empowering individual judges to halt national policy, and the incentives for strategic forum shopping in a polarized era. She also explains how CASA reins in—but doesn’t eliminate—the nationwide injunction, leaving room for broad relief through class actions, universal vacatur, and “complete relief” findings. 

The discussion sheds light on how the legal landscape is shifting after CASA, and why nationwide injunctions continue to shape major clashes between the courts and the executive branch.

Links:

• Mila Sohoni >>> Stanford Law page
• “The Puzzle of Procedural Originalism” >>>  Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

 (00:00:00) The Scope of Nationwide Injunctions

(00:12:01) Epistemic and Democratic Arguments Against Nationwide Injunctions

(00:28:54) The CASA Decision(00:29:37) Legal Basis and Impact of Executive Orders(00:38:20) Conclusion and Audience Questions

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Over a 35-year career at the Department of Justice, Jonathan Wroblewski, JD ’86, watched the country’s stance on criminal sentencing harden, soften, recalibrate, and shift again. One of his early cases at the DOJ, which involved a cross-burning in rural Georgia, sparked a fascination with sentencing policy that shaped the rest of his career. Today, he is one of the country’s leading experts on sentencing law and policy.

In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan talks with Wroblewski about crime and punishment, including the evolution of modern sentencing policies. Wroblewski, who has been serving as a visiting instructor at Stanford Law teaching courses on sentencing and AI in criminal justice, also offers a look inside his long career at the DOJ, where Karlan also served two separate stints as a political appointee.

The conversation moves between how crime waves shape public attitudes, why some sentencing reforms take hold while others stall, and what happens inside the DOJ when long-standing norms begin to erode. Wroblewski’s stories, drawn from decades of work across administrations, bring those shifts into sharper focus.

Links:

• Jonathan Wroblewski >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00) Intro to Jonathan Wroblewski’s Career 

(05:01) Evolution of Sentencing Policies 

(15:01) Shifts in Sentencing Philosophies 

(25:01) Public Perception and Crime Rates 

(35:01) Future Perspectives for Fair and Effective Legal Practices

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“The amount of chaos that’s been introduced into the federal health policy landscape is unprecedented,” says Michelle Mello, professor at Stanford Law School and the Stanford University School of Medicine.

That turmoil, she explains, has left major gaps in expertise, trust, and leadership—and states are rushing to fill the void. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pamela S. Karlan talks with Mello about what this moment means for the future of science, public health, research, and the law.

Mello describes how the hollowing out of career expertise at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has upended vaccine policy and research funding, forcing states into unfamiliar leadership roles. She and Karlan also unpack how shifting scientific guidance during the pandemic eroded public confidence, how politicized grant-making is reshaping the research ecosystem, and state governments’ growing role in creating what she calls a “shadow CDC.”

Despite the turmoil, Mello points to a few bright spots: state-level experimentation could generate valuable evidence of what works and what does not, and there are reassuring signs from the lower courts, she says, which she believes are capable of separating law from politics.

Earlier this year, Mello explored many of these themes in her JAMA Health Forum paper, “The Hard Road Ahead for State Public Health Departments.”

Links:

• Michelle Mello >>> Stanford Law page
• JAMA Health Forum paper >>> “The Hard Road Ahead for State Public Health Departments

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X
   

(00:00:00) Health Policy and COVID-19 Vaccines(00:05:10) The Vaccine Rollout Challenges(00:10:25) Public Trust and Recommendations(00:16:40) The Role of the Vaccine Committee(00:23:55) NIH Grant Process Insight(00:29:43) MIT's Stance on NIH Compact

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When the National Guard shows up in American cities, it’s usually after hurricanes, fires, or floods, not political fights. But recent federal deployments have changed the landscape and raised pressing questions about how far a president’s domestic military powers can go. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pam Karlan talks with Professor Bernadette Meyler about the growing use of the National Guard for domestic law enforcement and what it reveals about shifting boundaries of presidential power.  

Links:

• Bernadette Meyler >>> Stanford Law page
• Theaters of Pardoning >>> Stanford Law publications page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:00) Overview of National Guard Deployment 

(00:06:01) Changes in Immigration Enforcement 

(00:13:01) Continuous Deployment and Monitoring Elections 

(00:18:01) Training and Law Enforcement Activities of National Guard 

(00:24:31) Presidential Powers and Constraints 

(00:29:38) Ninth Circuit Panel’s Decision and Future Prospects

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When politics drives prosecutions, what happens to the rule of law? Are we in uncharted waters? Stanford Legal host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with her colleague criminal justice expert Robert Weisberg to unpack the extraordinary federal indictments of former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—with more potentially on the way.

Weisberg, the Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, explains how grand jury indictments normally work, why these cases are unusual, and how selective and vindictive prosecution claims might play out when the evidence of political motivation is broadcast via Truth Social missives. Karlan and Weisberg also discuss how Justice Department norms separating the White House from individual charging decisions have been systematically broken—and why these indictments, built on shaky legal ground and thin narratives, could face serious procedural challenges.

Links:

• Robert Weisberg >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:00) Targeted Prosecutions (00:10:00) Understanding Selective vs. Vindictive Prosecution (00:20:00) Comey Indictment and Related Current Events (00:27:00) John Bolton’s Legal Troubles (00:34:00) Potential Challenges for Adam Schiff 

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and assumed the power to levy tariffs, introducing uncertainty into global trading by reneging on previously negotiated agreements. One of the attorneys representing the challengers to the president’s decree in Trump v. VOS is Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a constitutional law expert and former Tenth Circuit judge. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited, is set to have ramifications well beyond trade. As McConnell wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed: “The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952…Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president’s trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution’s architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government’s three branches from becoming all powerful.” McConnell joins Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a discussion about this important case, exploring whether presidents have the authority to tax through tariffs without clear congressional approval, the historical and constitutional roots of "no taxation without representation," and the seismic ramifications of a redefinition of the limits of executive economic power.

Links:

• Michael McConnell >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Frequent mass shootings are a distinctly American problem, with news of another tragic shooting grabbing our attention every few weeks. Yet policy change is stalled.

In this episode, we focus on an important reason for the congressional paralysis—the gun lobby. John Donohue, one of the country’s leading experts on the empirical study of law and public policy, and Eric Baldwin, a research fellow at Stanford Law, join us for a discussion about their new research paper, "Another Shooting, Another Contribution From the Gun Lobby." They reveal how both gun rights and gun safety PACs flood competitive districts with donations in the wake of deadly shootings. The result? A high-stakes stalemate that helps preserve the status quo, despite overwhelming public support for measures like universal background checks. With Donohue’s decades of scholarship on crime and policy and Baldwin’s insights into political science and lobbying, the episode offers a timely look at how money and ideology shape one of the country's most polarizing debates and offers an examination of a grim reality: mass shootings have become more frequent, but meaningful reform rarely follows. Against the backdrop of rising political violence, the conversation probes the sometimes-surprising role of campaign donations and interest-group maneuvering in shaping what legislators do—or fail to do—after mass shooting tragedy.

Links:

• John Donohue >>> Stanford Law page
• Eric Baldwin >>> Stanford Law page
• Takuma Iwasaki >>> Stanford Law page
• “Financial Firepower: School Shootings and the Strategic Contributions of Pro-Gun Pacs” >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00) Introductions and The Role of Different Gun Lobby Groups

(10:01) Impact of Mass Shootings on Public Discourse 

(18:01) Political Reactions and Misinformation 

(25:01) Empirical Findings and Study Insights 

(30:01) Potential Changes in Public and Political Attitudes Towards Gun Violence

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan interviews her Stanford Law School colleague Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette about actions by the Trump administration that Ouellette says are undermining scientific research and jeopardizing America’s longstanding global leadership in medicine and innovation. Drawing on an essay she penned for Just Security, Ouellette explains how decades of bipartisan support for federally funded science—an engine of American innovation since World War II—is now at risk. From canceling grants already approved through peer review, to capping essential “indirect cost” reimbursements, she details how these moves threaten not just labs and universities but also patients, whose clinical trials are being abruptly halted.  

Ouellette also highlights a second front in her current scholarship: how drug development policy can be better aligned with public health needs. As a member of a National Academies committee, she recently co-authored a report showing that both private investment and federal funding often fail to prioritize diseases causing the greatest suffering. 

Links:

• Lisa Larrimore Ouellette >>> Stanford Law page
• The Trump Administration’s Multi-Front Assault on Federal Research Funding  >>> Just Security page
• Stanford Law’s Lisa Ouellette Helps Shape New Report on Drug Development Reform  >>> Stanford Lawyer online feature

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00) Research Funding 

(05:01) The Competitive Grant Process 

(15:01) Addressing Disease Burden 

(20:00) Impacts of Stopped Clinical Trials 

(25:01) The Role of Federal Investment in Innovation 

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

At the urging of President Trump, the Texas legislature has launched a mid‑decade redistricting effort aimed at securing additional Republican seats in Congress. If successful, this effort could have far‑reaching implications for representation and governance—and spur other states to try the same. In this episode of Stanford Legal, two of Stanford Law School’s—and the nation’s—leading election law experts sit down to untangle the legal and political stakes of today’s redistricting wars. In their wide‑ranging discussion, Professors Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily shed light on Texas’s push to add five new Republican‑leaning seats, the Supreme Court’s recent decision to re‑argue Louisiana v. Callais—a move that could reshape how the Voting Rights Act is applied—and the broader battles over race, representation, and the future of redistricting in America.

Links:

• Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00) Voting Rights and Gerrymandering 

(05:31)The Legal Landscape of Redistricting

(15:01) The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering 

(25:31) The Evolving Role of the Judiciary 

(35:01) Future Implications for the Voting Rights Act 

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Trump-era executive orders, police hiring standards, and college admissions all converge in a decades-long debate over disparate impact, one of the most misunderstood yet consequential doctrines in civil rights law. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Ralph Richard Banks, faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice, joins host Professor Pamela Karlan for a deep dive into how the disparate impact doctrine really works, why it matters, and what’s at stake when it’s attacked in the name of “meritocracy.” From the landmark Griggs case to modern college admissions, Banks dissects the arguments on all sides—showing how this sometimes-vilified legal doctrine not only helps root out discrimination, but can also strengthen, rather than undermine, meritocracy. 

Links:

• Rick Banks >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:00) Introduction to Executive Orders and Disparate Impact 

(00:03:30) The Function and Impact of Universities in Society 

(00:09:46) Understanding Different Measures of Merit 

(00:13:20) Legacy Preferences and Nepotistic Systems 

(00:18:16) Disparate Impact in Standardized Testing 

(00:23:38) The Future of College Admissions and Rick Banks' Upcoming Book 

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.