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.

In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Pam Karlan talks about the growing politicization of the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. Drawing on her experience in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division during both the Obama and Biden administrations, Karlan describes how recent loyalty tests, internal purges, and retaliatory transfers have hollowed out one of the nation’s most critical legal institutions. Karlan explores how the DOJ has historically relied on a “thin layer” of political leadership atop a deep bench of expert, nonpartisan career lawyers—and why that structure is now under threat. She also discusses the DOJ’s broad civil rights mandate, the challenges of a politicized environment, and the legal and moral consequences of eroding prosecutorial independence. The conversation makes the case that what’s happening now is not just a policy shift—it’s an institutional crisis that threatens the rule of law and the very idea of justice in America. 

Links:

• Neukom Center for the Rule of Law >>> 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 and Constraints Under Civil Service Reform Act

(00:05:01) The Impact of Political Agenda on DOJ's Functioning

(00:08:31) Challenges Faced by Career Lawyers

(00:14:16) Interaction Between Political Appointees and Career Lawyers

(00:17:46) Meritocracy and Recruitment in the DOJ
(00:20:01) comparative perspective in understanding the DOJ's special role

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

Amid escalating federal pressure on universities, Stanford Law School alum Greg Lukianoff, JD ’00, joins host Professor Pam Karlan for a sharp look at the free speech firestorms engulfing universities like Harvard and Columbia. First Amendment champion, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff recently penned an essay for The Atlantic titled “Trump’s Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard.” In this episode, Lukianoff expands on his essay, breaking down the Trump administration’s tactics to punish elite institutions, from defunding threats and faculty interference to student visa crackdowns, while also calling out universities themselves for stifling dissent and eroding public trust in higher education.

Links:

Greg Lukianoff  >>> FIRE pageThe Canceling of the American Mind >>> web pageThe Coddling of the American Mind >>> web page“Trump’s Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard” >>> The Atlantic 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 of Greg Lukianoff(00:05:01) Free Speech and Academic Freedom

(00:10:01) Challenges to Free Speech

(00:15:01) Legal Cases and Free Speech

(00:20:01) Free Speech and the Government 

(00:30:01) Future of Free Speech

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, Stanford Law Professor Evelyn Douek, a First Amendment scholar and permanent U.S. resident, expands on her recent Atlantic essay, “Can I Teach the First Amendment If I Only Have a Green Card?” She reflects on the paradox of teaching constitutional protections for free speech while watching the U.S. government detain or revoke visas for foreign students and other non-citizen residents engaged in protest or student journalism. Douek joins fellow Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan to explore what these developments could mean for the future of American universities, long known for drawing global talent. Their conversation highlights the growing tension between the nation's commitment to free expression and policies that penalize dissent by non-citizens.

Links:

• Evelyn Douek  >>> Stanford Law page
• “Can I Teach the First Amendment If I Only Have a Green Card?” >>> The Atlantic page
• Moderated Content podcast >>>  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 and Exercising First Amendment Rights(00:01:53) Writing the Essay(00:02:27) Teaching the First Amendment(00:15:25) Freedom of Speech and Religion(00:16:11) Challenges of Teaching the First Amendment

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

The LA Superior Court is the largest single unified trial court in the United States, serving the approximately 10 million residents of Los Angeles County—the cases it handles spanning a wide range of legal matters, from civil cases to criminal cases, family law, and juvenile matters.

As the state and county have grown, so has demand on the legal system. Access to justice—the inability for Americans to find and/or afford legal representation—has been called a crisis. What does that mean? What can be done about it?

Stanford Law School’s Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession and Legal Design Lab released a groundbreaking diagnostic report in April that outlines a blueprint for creating more innovative, modern, and accessible courts. 

The report marks a significant milestone in the unique partnership established in January 2024 between the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (the Court – SCLAC) and Stanford Law School. Created in collaboration with court leadership, frontline court staff, and community partners, the findings of the Stanford report demonstrate the Court’s commitment to enhancing the self-represented litigant experience and its dedication to leading in justice innovation.

Our guests joining Pam Karlan for this episode include Stanford Law Professor David Freeman Engstrom, the co-director of the Rhode Center whose work focuses on access to justice in the millions of low-dollar but highly consequential cases, including debt collection, eviction, foreclosure, and child support actions, that shape the lives of Americans each year;  Margaret Hagan, the executive director of the Legal Design Lab at Stanford Law School whose researches, designs, and develops new ways to make the U.S. civil justice system work better for people; and Daniel Bernal, associate director of research at the Rhode Center whose work explores the intersection of civil procedure and access to justice, with a focus on designing and testing innovations to make state courts work better for people. 

Links:

• David Freeman Engstrom  >>> Stanford Law page
• Margaret Hagan  >>> Stanford Law page
• Daniel Bernal  >>> Stanford Law page
• A Blueprint for Expanding Access to Justice in Los Angeles Superior Court’s Eviction Docket  >>>  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) Introductions and Tour of the LA Superior Court

(00:21:25) Use of Technology and the Pain Points in Court Systems 

(00:27:25) National Implications of Court Innovations 

(00:33:00 Court as a Central Hub for Legal Problem-Solving 

(00:35:04) Collaboration 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.

On February 19 of this year, President Donald Trump issued one of his first executive orders, Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy, leaving no doubt his aim to reduce its size and scope. As DOGE got to work firing federal workers—and cutting entire agencies, the president also fired heads of agencies—Democratic and Republican—cleaning house of leadership not deemed on side. 

As EO whiplash continues, so does pushback, with many in the public learning about the people behind the cost-cutting and loyalty tests—the federal workers and government agencies helping to make American life run smoothly and safely. What are the legal questions?

Joining this episode is Anne Joseph O'Connell, a leading scholar of U.S. administrative law and the federal bureaucracy. She was a presidentially appointed member of the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency dedicated to improving regulatory procedures, from October 2022 to January 2025. She combines a lawyer's doctrinal acumen and institutional sensibilities with a political scientist's deep understanding of American politics and political theory and an empiricist's rigor about facts in the world. Her scholarship explains how government really works. She has done pioneering and award-winning work on previously unforeseen questions about the problem of vacancies in federal office and about the legal and normative implications of unorthodox government entities such as the U.S. Postal Service or Smithsonian.

Links:

• Anne Joseph O’Connell  >>> Stanford Law page
• Actings >>> 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 Anne Joseph O'Connell's background

(00:03:44) Actings in Government

(00:17:04) The Importance of Government Accountability

(00:19:22) The Role of Detailees in Government and The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

(00:27:24) Government Waste and Fraud

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