The ACLU’s Sophia Lin Lakin discusses voting access and the redistricting battles shaping political power

---

Sophia Lin Lakin, JD ’11 (MS ’04, BA ’02), director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, challenges the stated premises behind many current voting restrictions, including claims about widespread non-citizen voting. “If we’re worried about the integrity of our elections,” she tells Stanford Law professor and host Pam Karlan, “we should be worried about making sure that more people are participating in our elections and not chasing a fantasy.”

That concern—how long-standing efforts to restrict voting access can make it harder for eligible voters to participate—runs through the episode, which was recorded shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which had created a second majority-Black district, holding that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision could make it harder to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge maps that dilute minority voting strength.

Lakin and Karlan discuss what is at stake when access to the ballot becomes harder and the rules for translating votes into political power begin to shift. Their conversation focuses on proof-of-citizenship requirements, mail ballots, voter roll purges, and redistricting battles, offering a timely look at the legal fights shaping who can vote, whose ballots count, and whether communities can elect representatives of their choice.

Links:

Connect:

(00:00:00) The Three Buckets of Voting Rights 

(00:02:35) Voter Roll Surveillance 

(00:06:17) The Non-Citizen Voting Myth and the Dangers of Faulty Databases 

(00:10:23) Citizenship Documentation Requirements 

(00:16:19) Mail Voting Rules and the Materiality Provision 

(00:21:00) Section Two of the Voting Rights Act and Redistricting Battles 

(00:28:51) Race, Politics, and the Future of Fair Maps 

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

Stanford’s Greg Ablavsky on the history behind the birthright case

---

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that changed that understanding. According to the President's executive order, going forward, the only people who will be U.S. citizens at birth are people who are born in the United States to parents who are citizens, at least one of whom is a citizen, or at least one of the parents is a legal permanent resident of the United States. And what does all of this mean for Native Americans? 

In this episode, Greg Ablavsky, a Stanford Law professor and scholar of federal Indian law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss President Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship--a case now at the Supreme Court.

The discussion centers on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Ablavsky explains why federal Indian law has become part of that debate. He traces the distinctive legal status of Native nations within the United States, the historical exception for members of tribal nations, and the way that history appears in seminal cases such as Elk v. Wilkins.  The conversation also looks at the relationship between Elk and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. Along the way, Karlan and Ablavsky break down why history matters to the government’s current effort to argue for new limits on birthright citizenship--and more.

Links:

Connect:

(00:00:00) Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth?

(00:03:54) The Origins of the 14th Amendment 

(00:05:58) "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof"

(00:11:42) Citizenship at the Supreme Court

(00:17:03) Native Americans, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, and the Presidency

(00:18:49) The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA (Barbara) — Analogies, Originalism, and the Native American

(00:28:31) Practical Chaos, Hard Cases and What the Court Should Do

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

Stanford Law Alum Darien Shanske on Wealth, Fairness, and California’s Proposed Billionaire Tax

---

On this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Richard Thompson Ford talks taxes with Darien Shanske, JD '06, a UC Davis law professor and visiting professor at Stanford Law, who helped draft California’s proposed Billionaire Tax Act, which supporters hope to place on the November 2026 ballot. Shanske explains why he believes critics have often attacked a distorted version of the proposal, not the measure itself: a one-time 5% tax on net worth above $1 billion, payable over five years, aimed at helping California respond to widening wealth inequality and cuts to the social safety net. The conversation explores the legal design of the measure, the politics surrounding it, and the larger questions it raises about tax fairness, concentrated wealth, and what tools states should have when public needs are acute.

Links:

Connect:

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

Jennifer Chacón discusses how immigration crackdowns are reshaping policing and public life

---

The Trump administration came in promising mass deportation. What has followed goes well beyond border control to matters of local policing, detention, federal power, and the limits of the law inside the United States. On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Richard Thompson Ford talks with immigration expert Jennifer Chacón, the Bruce Tyson Mitchell Professor of Law, about the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda and the profound consequences it is having in cities and communities across the country. They discuss racial profiling, ignored court orders, pressure on states and localities, and the widening reach of immigration enforcement into everyday civic life. Professor Chacón, author of a casebook on immigration law, elaborates on some of the themes in her recently published paper “The Law of the Immigration Raid.”

Links:

Connect:

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

Supreme Court limits IEEPA tariff power in a 6–3 ruling as Al Sykes and Pam Karlan explain the impact on Congress, trade, and what’s next

---

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.

Deborah Sivas on the EPA’s Rescission of the Endangerment Finding

---

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.

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.

Stanford’s Robert MacCoun shows how scientific habits can sharpen judgment and strengthen civil discourse in a polarized society.

---

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:

Connect:

(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.

What happens when the legal tools meant to protect democracy are used to weaken it? Kim Scheppele explains.

---

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:

Connect:

(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.

Stanford Law’s Allen Weiner explores developments in Venezuela and the role—and limits—of international law

---

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:

Connect:

(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.