Stanford Legal

Deborah Sivas discusses the recent rollback of environmental laws, calls to streamline environmental review to speed up development, and the role communities should play in decisions about what gets built. 

---

As the push to build more infrastructure gains attention, so does debate over the role of environmental protections and public participation. How can communities have a voice in development while still allowing needed projects to move forward?

Stanford's Deborah Sivas, JD ’87, environmental law expert and co-director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, joins Pam Karlan to discuss the “climate abundance” movement and its implications for environmental law. Sivas examines whether changes to environmental permitting would address the challenges of building new infrastructure and how communities can have a meaningful say in those decisions. “It’s not durable if you don’t have a population to support it,” she says. “If people can see it as a win-win coming into their communities in a way that benefits them as well as larger policy goals, to me, that’s the right way forward—not disenfranchising them.”

Sivas and Karlan discuss how environmental law is evolving amid new policy and legal developments, including the current administration’s push for expanded fossil fuel development, changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a proposal to open some of Alaska’s last old-growth forests to logging.

Links:

• Deborah A. Sivas >>> Stanford Law School page
• Endangered Species Act’s “harm” rule, explained  >>> Stanford Law School 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 welcoming Debbie Sivas 

(00:02:16) What is "climate abundance"? 

(00:04:22) Deregulation for fossil fuels, not clean energy 

(00:06:26) Why the grid really isn't being built 

(00:08:32) Killing wind projects

(00:10:31) NEPA, the Supreme Court, and citizen suits 

(00:13:03) Courts vs. agencies: a legal whiplash 

(00:14:40) Opening Alaska's roadless forests to logging 

(00:18:57) A "concrete proposal" for environmental democracy 

(00:22:08) The national and global collective action problem 

(00:24:02) Novel legal tools: IEEPA, the Alien Enemies Act, and the Defense Production Act 

(00:25:42) Citizen suits' achilles' heel 

(00:27:24) Training the next generation of environmental lawyers 

(00:29:40) Clinic spotlight: Northern Chumash Tribal Council 

(00:31:13) Closing thoughts 

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

Nate Persily joins Pam Karlan to discuss efforts to change the rules governing the 2026 elections and the legal battles over how those changes would affect voting. 

---

As the push to build more infrastructure gains attention, so does debate over the role of environmental protections and public participation. How can communities have a voice in development while still allowing needed projects to move forward?

As the 2026 elections approach, questions about how Americans vote are increasingly becoming questions for the courts. Disputes over redistricting, mail-in voting, and how elections are run are raising broader questions about tensions between states and a federal government for control over who sets the rules and when they can be changed. Stanford's Nate Persily, JD ’98, a leading expert on election law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss the legal and constitutional questions surrounding elections. 

Persily and Karlan discuss Missouri’s effort to redraw its congressional districts in the middle of an election cycle, the current administration’s efforts to change mail voting rules through the U.S. Postal Service, and the Supreme Court’s handling of election disputes. They also look ahead to the 2030 census, including questions about citizenship and who should be counted, and consider the broader consequences when election rules remain unsettled as voting gets underway.

Links:

• Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law School 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

(00:01:53) Setting up today's two topics

(00:02:21) Missouri's redistricting battle explained

(00:03:49) The Supreme Court sides with the Missouri Supreme Court

(00:04:42) Two separate Supreme Court interventions
(00:06:37) Why this moment is unprecedented

(00:08:54) The rise of one-party congressional delegations

(00:11:54) Is there a way out?

(00:12:47) A preview: the 2030 census fight

(00:16:25) Shifting to how Americans actually vote

(00:18:00) Trump's executive order on mail voting

(00:19:51) The Postal Service's ballot-matching portal

(00:21:37) Envelope errors and a scramble before Election Day

(00:22:34) Round one at the Supreme Court: too soon to sue

(00:24:57) Round two: now it's "too late"

(00:26:21) The Postal Service's outsized role in elections

(00:27:17) The Purcell principle and last-minute chaos

(00:28:01) A fracturing Supreme Court on election law

(00:28:54) "Suppression through chaos"

(00:30:10) Closing

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

Stanford’s Anne Joseph O’Connell examines who can step in when a top federal position is vacant and what recent court decisions could mean for how those positions are filled. 

----

When a top federal position is vacant, someone still has to run the office. But who gets to step in, and what powers can they exercise while the position remains unfilled? Those questions are at the center of recent legal disputes over how the federal government operates when permanent officials are not yet in place.

In this episode, Stanford Law School Professor Anne Joseph O’Connell, a leading scholar of administrative law and the federal bureaucracy, joins host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss the rules governing temporary officials and the way federal agencies are organized and staffed.

O’Connell and Karlan examine recent disputes over U.S. attorneys and what happens when the usual process for putting a permanent leader in place does not happen quickly. They discuss how courts have interpreted the rules for temporary officials and what those decisions could mean for other federal agencies and future administrations. The conversation also considers how much authority the president has over the people who work for him and where the law draws the line.

Links:

Connect:

(00:00:00) Welcome to Anne Joseph O'Connell

(00:01:32) What "Actings" are, and why they matter

(00:02:53) The U.S. Attorney job, explained

(00:07:09) Three ways to fill a vacant U.S. Attorney seat

(00:11:01) The courts say no to post-vacancy "first assistants"

(00:12:37) Ripple effects across the federal government

(00:14:07) Does this undercut the Unitary Executive?

(00:15:24) A legislative fix, and the delegation workaround

(00:16:31) Circuit courts shut down delegation

(00:18:22) Trump v. Slaughter and the power to fire

(00:19:12) The Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights

(00:22:26) Where's the line on presidential removal power?

(00:27:02) Closing thoughts
 

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

The ACLU’s Anthony Romero unpacks a sweeping docket—from a Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship to voting rights and free speech—as the rule of law is tested.

---

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:

Connect:

(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.

The Declaration as a “promissory note”—and what it demands now

Connect:

Chapters:

[00:00:26 – 00:04:40] Chapter 1 — Series finale setup + introducing the speakers

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

Former state solicitors general Michael Mongan and Kevin Gallagher discuss the evolving role of state solicitors general and how states work together to shape legal battles before the Supreme Court.

---

When states go to court, the battles are not always divided along party lines. State solicitors general often work across state lines to defend shared interests, coordinate legal strategy, and help shape cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In this episode, former California Solicitor General Michael Mongan, JD '06 (BA '01), and former Virginia Solicitor General Kevin Gallagher, now partners at WilmerHale, join podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the role of state solicitors general has evolved. They discuss multistate litigation, bipartisan coalitions, and how states can work together when their legal interests align. Mongan explains that bipartisan cooperation often happens when “they share sovereign interests as states and those interests are genuinely threatened.”

Connect:

Chapters

00:00 Introduction

03:03 What does a State Solicitor General actually do? 

04:24 Independence from the Governor 

06:10 Who speaks for the state? 

09:22 How Virginia united every state 

12:44 Where red and blue states actually agree 

15:12 The mechanics of building a multistate coalition 

17:06 Avoiding duplicate briefs: who writes first? 

19:53 From public service to a state AG private practice 

20:55 Why firms are racing to build state AG expertise 

24:57 Favorite cases

28:44 Closing 

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

The real crisis isn’t the Declaration—it’s what we’ve stopped teaching.

Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, contends that universities have failed at liberal education—the cultivation of citizens prepared to exercise freedom and responsibility. He attributes the breakdown to politicized classrooms, overreliance on narrow “scientistic” approaches in the social sciences, and a professional culture that trains future scholars instead of educating future citizens—leaving graduates with little serious exposure to the Declaration, the Constitution, and the moral logic of self-government. Stephen Haber, Stanford Professor of Political Science, History, and Economics, presses the discussion toward causes and incentives, setting up a debate about who is responsible for the drift and what reforms could realistically restore civic learning.

Connect:

Chapters:

[00:00:26 – 00:04:11] Chapter 1: Setting the stakes—The Declaration at 250 and today’s critiques

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

"The Declaration meets the machine age"

In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell frames a question the Founders never confronted: if the Declaration grounds rights in human nature, what happens when machines can generate persuasive, human-like language at scale? Constitutional scholar Alexander Tsesis argues that the Declaration’s conception of rights is inherently human-centered—rooted in consciousness, moral agency, intentionality, and the capacity to participate in a constitutional republic—so AI systems are not and should not become First Amendment rights-holders. He warns that treating large language models as protected “speakers” would be a major break from the Declaration’s principles and could make ordinary democratic regulation—transparency requirements, labeling of synthetic content, safety rules, data practices, and restrictions on deceptive election deepfakes—far harder by forcing courts into strict scrutiny review.

Stanford historian Anne Twitty broadens the lens by situating abolitionists’ use of the Declaration within wider 19th-century conflicts over speech and constitutional meaning, reminding listeners that rival traditions—including censorship and suppression—also shaped American practice. She also presses a key tension in Tsesis’s framework: abolitionists championed not only the right to speak, but the public’s right to hear, circulate, and access contested ideas (as seen in the abolitionist postal campaign and opposition to the congressional gag rule). That listener-centered strand, she suggests, could potentially be invoked by scholars arguing for some constitutional shelter for AI-generated communications—an argument Tsesis acknowledges but ultimately resists by emphasizing that the First Amendment’s core purpose is protecting human expression and self-government, not machine output.

Connect:

Chapters:
[00:00:26] Chapter 1- Framing Question: Do constitutional rights grounded in “human nature” apply to AI?

[00:01:18] Chapter 2 - Thesis: Why Tsesis says AI can’t be a First Amendment rights-holder

[00:10:08] Chapter 3 - Regulatory Stakes: What happens if courts treat LLM outputs as protected “speech”?

[00:52:35] Chapter 4 - Historical Challenge: Do abolitionists’ “right to hear” arguments support listener-centric AI rights?

[01:04:17] Chapter 5 - Tsesis Response: Listener rights matter—but is the First Amendment still speaker-centered?

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

Stanford’s Allen Weiner examines how the U.S. war with Iran raises questions about the president’s power to wage war and negotiate peace.

---

The American war with Iran began with ambitious goals, including preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and potentially bringing about regime change. But the conflict may well be leading to a very different outcome, according to Stanford Law School's Allen Weiner, a scholar of international and human rights law and former State Department lawyer. Just prior to the recent collapse of the tenuous cease fire, Weiner joined podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the conflict is arguably strengthening Iran’s most repressive factions while putting economic and diplomatic pressure on the United States.

Weiner traces how the conflict grew out of the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, asks whether the new agreement with Iran amounts to a weaker version of that accord, and considers how ceasefires and shifting legal rationales have allowed the administration to sidestep Congress and keep the War Powers clock from running out. 

Connect:

Chapters

00:00:00 Introduction 

00:02:09 Back to the JCPOA—The 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal 

00:04:23 From "worst deal ever" to a weaker one 

00:04:51 Two rounds of strikes 

00:07:11 Regime change that wasn't 

00:08:40 The Strait of Hormuz and the global economy 

00:09:49 Emboldened by Venezuela 

00:11:33 Israel in, NATO out 

00:12:27 The new MOU 

00:14:31 Israel left off the page 

00:17:38 Free transit, for now 

00:19:06 Treaty or political commitment? 

00:21:36 The War Powers loophole 

00:24:26 Can Congress actually enforce the War Powers Act? 

00:28:12 Conclusion 

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

“Two competing originalist instincts”

In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces Randy Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and Faculty Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution alongside Eugene Volokh, the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford), and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus (and Distinguished Research Professor) at UCLA School of Law.

Barnett and Volokh share respect for the Declaration’s importance but diverge on what that importance does in law. Barnett sees the Declaration as the “ground and foundation of future government,” supplying binding premises about “just powers” and limiting even broad state “police power” claims that risk subverting rights. Volokh counters that the Declaration resembles a political platform and persuasive rhetoric—valuable for context and values, but too general and historically contingent to function as enforceable law without tethering to more specific legal texts.

Connect:

Chapters

[00:00:26] Chapter 1: Framing Question: Is the Declaration “law” if courts can’t directly enforce it?

[00:01:54] Chapter 2: Setting the Stage: Why Barnett and Volokh, and why this debate now?

[00:06:11] Chapter 3: Barnett’s Case-in-Chief: How did Salmon P. Chase use the Declaration as law in anti-slavery litigation?

[00:37:38] Chapter 4: Volokh’s Challenge: What is the Declaration—and what isn’t it?

[00:56:04] Chapter 5: Barnett’s Rebuttal: Can the Declaration shape doctrine without giving judges a blank check?

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