When President Trump declared a national emergency and imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), businesses challenged the move, arguing the president did not have authority under that statute to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court recently agreed. 

On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with international trade expert Alan Sykes, professor of law and Warren Christopher Professor in the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy, to unpack the Court’s 6–3 decision. Sykes is a leading expert on the application of economics to legal problems and the author of the book The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements.

At the heart of the case, Sykes explains, was the question of whether a statute that allows the president to “regulate importation” can be stretched to authorize taxes on imports. The majority said no, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns the taxing power to Congress, and that if Congress intended to hand that power over, it would have said so clearly. The conversation explores the statutory arguments, the role of the Major Questions Doctrine, and the unusual alignments among the justices.

But the ruling raises as many questions as it answers, Sykes notes. What happens to billions in tariffs already collected? Do international trade deals struck in the shadow of these tariffs still stand? And with other statutory tools available is this really the end of the tariff saga, or just the next chapter?

Links:

Connect:

(00:00:00) Tariffs and IEEPA

(00:10:53) Statutory text and the history of tariffs

(00:13:54) “Regulate importation” and the Major Questions Doctrine

(00:17:56) Liquidation Timing, finality, and the 314‑day rule

(00:19:11) The Court of International Trade

(00:29:53) From IEEPA to Section 122 and what’s next under Section 301

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

The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced it was rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding, the legal foundation for federal regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The administration has called the move the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. What does it actually do? And what happens next?

On this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Deborah Sivas, an expert in environmental law, joins co-host Pam Karlan to unpack the legal strategy behind the repeal, the role of recent Supreme Court decisions, and what’s likely to unfold in the courts. Among other ramifications, they also explore California’s authority to adopt its own, more aggressive emissions standards and what this latest move by the Trump administration signals for the future of federal climate regulation.

Links:

Connect:

(00:00:00): The EPA’s rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

(00:06:43): Climate science consensus and legal strategy

(00:16:01): The litigation roadmap: process vs. substance

(00:29:53): Wind power on the cusp

(00:30:10): Solar economics and federal land authority

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

In a timely conversation about the ACLU’s massive docket of cases, Pam Karlan speaks with Anthony Romero, JD ’90, executive director of the ACLU, about the surge of civil rights and civil liberties battles facing the country right now.

Romero discusses major pieces of litigation spanning immigration, free speech, voting rights, and government accountability. A key focus is the Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship, where the Trump administration is attempting to deny citizenship to certain children born in the U.S., a move Romero calls an attack on one of the core promises of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also explore what happens when the government pushes the boundaries of compliance with court rulings and what that means for the rule of law.

Tune in for a compelling conversation about the cases that could help define the next chapter of civil liberties law in the United States.

Links:

• Anthony Romero >>> ACLU 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) Introduction and ACLU’s Rapidly Expanding Docket

(02:30) Small but Mighty—ACLU vs. Federal Power

(07:00) Inside a Burgeoning Docket

(11:30) Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court

(16:00) Enforcement at Scale and the Rule of Law

(21:00): An Inflection Point in Public Sentiment

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

In a world where confidence is rewarded and humility can feel like a liability, Stanford Law professor Robert MacCoun argues for something radical: fewer unwavering opinions, more critical reflection, and a better way to disagree. On Stanford Legal, MacCoun joins co-hosts Pamela Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a conversation about how “habits of mind” borrowed from science can help citizens, lawyers, and policymakers think more clearly and function more effectively in a pluralistic society.

MacCoun is the James and Patricia Kowal Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, a professor by courtesy in Stanford’s Psychology Department, and the university’s senior associate vice provost for research. Trained as a social psychologist, his work sits at the intersection of law, science, and public policy, with decades of research on decision-making, bias, and the social dynamics that shape how evidence is interpreted. In the episode, he draws on his most recent book, Third Millennium Thinking: Creating Sense in a World of Nonsense, co-authored with Nobel Prize–winning physicist Saul Perlmutter and philosopher John Campbell, to explain why probabilistic thinking, intellectual humility, and what he calls an “opinion diet” are essential tools for modern civic life.
 

Links:

• Robert MacCoun >>> Stanford Law page
• Third Millennium Thinking >>> 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) Introduction and Noise vs. Bias

(00:04:42) The Power of Probabilistic Thinking

(00:12:20) Juries, Community Judgment, and Reasonable Doubt

(00:13:23) Habits of Community

(00:25:08) Motivation, Tools, and Decision Processes

(00:26:14) When Evidence Won’t Settle It

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

Professor Kim Scheppele has spent much of her career watching democracies rise and fall. She went to Hungary in the early 1990s expecting to study democratic optimism after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Instead, decades later, she found herself documenting how constitutional democracy can be dismantled from the inside out.

That experience frames a wide-ranging conversation on the latest episode of Stanford Legal, where host Professor Pam Karlan speaks with Scheppele, the Lawrence S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton and a visiting professor at Stanford Law School, about how democracies crumble, and why the United States is not exempt.

Drawing on years of on-the-ground research in Hungary, Russia, and other countries, Scheppele explains a central shift in democratic collapse: it no longer arrives through overt rupture, but through elections followed by legal and constitutional maneuvering. Leaders campaign as democrats, win office, and then use technical changes to the law, including court rules, budgetary controls, and civil-service structures, to weaken checks and rig the system in their favor.

The discussion turns to the United States, examining how party polarization, shifting institutional loyalties, and expanding claims of executive power have made familiar safeguards less reliable than many assumed.

Links:

• Kim Scheppele >>> 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)  Learning in Wartime: A scholar’s antidote to the “cataract of nonsense”

(00:08:17) Patterns abroad and at home—are U.S. checks in danger?

(00:15:04) Naming the playbook

(00:32:07) More litigation—access, risk, and the pace of change

(00:32:39) Restoring democracy through law

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

Can the United States arrest a foreign head of state by sending FBI agents—and military troops—into another country? On the latest episode of Stanford Legal,  Professor Pam Karlan sits down with international law expert and Stanford Law lecturer Allen Weiner to discuss the recent extraction of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. Their wide-ranging conversation focuses on the uneasy space where U.S. law collides with the constraints of international law.

Weiner, a former U.S. State Department legal adviser and now director of several international law–and humanitarian-focused programs at Stanford Law School, explains how domestic legal theories advanced to justify Operation Absolute Resolve in contrast with the UN Charter’s ban on the use of force. He situates the episode in a longer arc of U.S. efforts to reconcile military action with international legal limits, including earlier debates over actions in Kosovo and Libya.

The legal questions are substantial, but the stakes ultimately turn on precedent and norms: how U.S. actions are understood by other states, what they signal to rivals such as Russia and China, and whether the international system begins to resemble the logic captured in Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars—that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Links:

• Allen Weiner >>> 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) Is a threat a use of force? 

(00:16:18) Pressure, coercion, and the non-intervention line 

(00:17:02) Venezuela policy and the specter of escalation 

(00:28:24) Law, power, and the South China Sea 

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

What are the legal implications of the unprecedented mass pardoning of the January 6th rioters? What does it say about American rule of law? 

President Biden’s DOJ prosecuted nearly 1,600 of the January 6, 2021, rioters—many for acts of shocking violence against police and government offices. On January 20, newly sworn-in President Trump, in one of his first official acts, issued a sweeping grant of clemency to all of the rioters charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol attack. He pardoned most defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The response from some of these violent rioters since the pardons has been alarming.

“The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. We need to find and put them behind bars for what they did,” said Enrique Tarrio, the former national Proud Boys leader, sentenced to a 22-year sentence on seditious conspiracy charges, on Alex Jones' podcast soon after his pardon. 

Our guests today are Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar and former DOJ prosecutor Brendan Ballou.

Sinnar’s scholarship, including a recent study of hate groups, focuses on the legal treatment of political violence, the procedural dimensions of civil rights litigation, and the role of institutions in protecting individual rights and democratic values in the national security context

Ballou was a lawyer at the Department of Justice for five years. He resigned on January 23 soon after President Trump's pardons. In a New York Times opinion essay, he wrote: “For while some convicted rioters seem genuinely remorseful, and others appear simply ready to put politics behind them, many others are emboldened by the termination of what they see as unjust prosecutions. Freed by the president, they have never been more dangerous.” He graduated from Stanford Law in 2016.

Links:

• Shirin Sinnar >>> Stanford Law page
• New York Times piece by Brendan Ballou >>> I Prosecuted the Capitol Rioters. They Have Never Been More Dangerous.

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

(17:24) Addressing Militia Violence and Legal Gaps

(21:37) State-Level Prosecutions and Risks of Expanding Criminal Laws

(25:27) Pardons, Political Violence, and Historical Parallels  

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

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans’ private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation’s largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.

Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. 

The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.

Links:

• Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page
• “The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication 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) The Rise of Executive Power

(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy
(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government
(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach
(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court
(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington

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

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

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

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.