Will the three remaining cases against former president Donald Trump ever get to trial? After Judge Cannon's controversial dismissal of charges in the classified documents case—and the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision—the question is not so obvious. In this episode, criminal law expert David Sklansky joins Pam and Rich to discuss these two earthquake decisions, Special Prosecutor Jake Smith's appeal of Judge Cannon's decision, and the ongoing legal battles surrounding Trump.

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• David Sklansky >>> Stanford Law School Page
• David Sklansky’s Book >>> A Pattern of Violence: How the Law Classifies Crimes and What It Means for Justice 

(00:00:00) Introduction and Overview

Introduction to the podcast, Professor David Sklansky, and overview of the topics: Judge Cannon's decision, special master appointment, and Supreme Court's recent decision on immunity.

(00:01:43) Judge Cannon's Decision and Rationale

Discussion on Judge Cannon's rationale for dismissing the classified documents case, the 11th Circuit's reversal, and the extraordinary nature of her decision.

(00:04:12) Special Counsel Appointment and Historical ContextExamination of the reasoning behind appointing a special counsel, Judge Cannon's strained statutory interpretations, and the long history of appointing special counsels.(00:07:23) Analysis of Previous Controversial Rulings

Review of Judge Cannon's earlier controversial ruling about appointing a special master, the 11th Circuit's reversal, and consistency in historical interpretations.

(00:13:42) Unitary Executive Theory and Accountability

Discussion on the unitary executive theory, potential motivations behind Judge Cannon's rulings, and whether the case is about presidential accountability or diffusing responsibility.

(00:21:05) Supreme Court's Immunity Decision and Future Implications

Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision to remand the election interference case, challenges and potential outcomes, and the impact on the Manhattan case involving official acts.

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

Control of the border and illegal immigration are again in the headlines and the centerpiece of a divisive presidential campaign. Here to help make sense of recent legal successes and failures is immigration law expert Jennifer Chacón, the Bruce Tyson Mitchell Professor of Law at Stanford. The author of the new book, Legal Phantoms: Executive Action and Haunting Failures of Immigration Law, which offers insights into the human stories and governmental challenges shaping contemporary immigration debates, Chacon discusses the complexities of immigration policy,  its intersection with constitutional law, criminal law, and societal perceptions of identity and belonging.

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• Jennifer Chacón >>> Stanford Law School Page

(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Pam Karlan introduces the show and today’s guest, Jennifer Chacón, highlighting her research and recent book on immigration law, Legal Phantoms.( 00:02:26) Chapter 2: The Stalemate of Immigration Reform Rich Ford addresses the lack of progress in comprehensive immigration reform. Jennifer Chacón details the initial aim of her research project to study the implementation of Senate Bill 744.The shift in focus to executive actions by President Obama after the bill’s failure, including the Deferred Action for Parents and DACA expansion programs.(00:07:05) Chapter 3: Understanding Deferred Action

Jennifer Chacón explains deferred action and its implications for individuals lacking legal status, plus the significance of work authorization and the temporary nature of deferred action programs.

(00:10:38) Chapter 4: Personal Stories and Community Impact 

Jennifer Chacón shares insights from her interviews with long-term residents about their perceptions of border policy and local enforcement and the varied perspectives of immigrants on the issues of border control and local government actions.

(00:17:06) Chapter 5: Future of Immigration Reform 

Rich Ford inquires about potential reforms, and Jennifer Chacón emphasizes the interconnectedness of border policy and long-term resident solutions. They discuss the Biden administration’s recent announcements and their implications. Jennifer Chacón shares her view on the political challenges and ideal legislative changes for addressing immigration issues.

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

Should presidents be immune from prosecution? If yes, under what circumstances? Stanford Professor Michael McConnell, a former federal judge, joins Pam Karlan for a discussion on presidential immunity, the Constitution, and former president Trump's cases. In this insightful episode, they discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's stance on criminal versus civil liabilities for presidents, the political ramifications of prosecutorial actions, and the historical context of executive power under the U.S. Constitution.

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

Is legal representation in the U.S. only for the rich and corporations? That's a question that we'll explore in this episode of Stanford Legal with guests David and Nora Freeman Engstrom, two leading authorities on access to justice and the legal profession. They'll explain the roots of the challenge, how unauthorized practice of law rules contribute to the problem, and how to address them. The Engstroms co-direct Stanford Law School's Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, an academic center working to shape the future of legal services and access to the legal system. This episode delves into some alarming statistics, including the fact that in three-quarters of civil cases in state courts, at least one party is without a lawyer. This alone often leads to unjust outcomes in cases involving debt collection, evictions, family law, and other areas. And that is just part of the problem, as the Engstroms explain.   

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• Nora Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School Page
• David Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School Page

Chapter 1: The Access to Justice Crisis in the U.S.
(00:00:00) Pam Karlan introduces the episode, discussing the work of David and Nora Freeman Engstrom at Stanford Law School's Deborah Rhode Center on the Legal Profession. This section provides an overview of the access to justice crisis, highlighting the high percentage of cases where individuals lack legal representation and a look at the types of cases predominantly at issue, including debt collection, evictions, mortgage foreclosures, and family law cases.

Chapter 2: Understanding the Consequences and Causes of Legal Inaccessibility
(00:7:06)  David and Nora Freeman Engstrom explore the broader implications of the lack of legal representation, including the cascade of related legal and financial issues that arise from initial problems like wage garnishment and eviction. They also touch on the hidden legal issues that never make it to court due to individuals' inability to seek legal help.

Chapter 3: Exploring Solutions and Technological Impacts on Access to Justice
(00:10:07) David and Nora Freeman Engstrom  delve into potential solutions to the access to justice crisis, including the role of technology in both exacerbating and potentially alleviating the problem. They discuss the efficiency of technological tools used by the debt collection industry and the implications for legal access.

Chapter 4: The Technology Asymmetry in Debt Collection
(00:14:19 )  Pam Karlan and David Freeman Engstrom discuss how debt collectors use automation to exploit legal processes against unrepresented individuals. They highlight the stark disparity between technological access for debt collectors and individual defendants. Engstrom points out the restrictive rules that limit software-driven legal services, exacerbating the access to justice crisis.

Chapter 5: The Historical Context and Current Restrictions on Legal Services
(00:15:55)  Nora Freeman Engstrom delves into the history of legal service restrictions in the U.S., contrasting it with medical professions. She introduces her research on auto clubs and their provision of legal services in the early 20th century, showing how organized bar associations shut down these alternatives to preserve their monopoly.

Chapter 6: Modern Innovations and Future Prospects in Legal Services
(00:24:13)  The host and guests discuss recent efforts to relax unauthorized practice of law rules in states like Utah and Arizona. They explore innovative legal service models emerging from these reforms, including tiered services and AI-driven solutions, and their potential to democratize access to legal assistance. The discussion highlights how entities like LegalZoom are now able to hire lawyers and provide more comprehensive services. They also touch on the potential of generative AI to bridge the gap between legal jargon and plain language, making legal assistance more accessible to the public. The chapter concludes with reflections on the promise and challenges of these technological advancements.

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, Rich and Pam discuss the successes and failures of Brown v. Board of Education with their colleague, Rick Banks. Marking the 70th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, they look at its impact on Jim Crow segregation and the ongoing challenges in achieving educational equality in the U.S. Banks offers a critical analysis of the effectiveness of Brown in integrating American primary and secondary education and explores alternative approaches to further racial and socioeconomic integration in schools.

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• Ralph Richard Banks >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Lawyer online feature >>> Brown v. Board: Success or Failure?

(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Significance of Brown vs. Board of Education
Introduction to the podcast and the topic of Brown vs. Board of Education. Discussion on the transformative impact of Brown on American society and its less effective impact on primary and secondary education.

(00:02:36) Chapter 2: Initial Impact and Challenges of Brown
Exploration of the immediate aftermath of the Brown decision, including the decade of minimal desegregation and the eventual legislative push in the 1960s. Mention of personal anecdotes highlighting the slow progress.

(00:06:35) Chapter 3: Massive Resistance and Supreme Court’s Role
Discussion on the era of massive resistance to desegregation, the role of the Southern Manifesto, and the Supreme Court's strategic avoidance of direct intervention. Examination of the lingering effects of this period on the present educational landscape.

(00:10:16) Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Disparities and School Segregation
Analysis of the ongoing economic inequality and its impact on school segregation. Comparison between Northern and Southern school desegregation efforts, with specific examples from Detroit and Charlotte.

(00:14:45) Chapter 5: Legal and Structural Barriers to Integration
Examination of legal decisions such as Milliken and San Antonio vs. Rodriguez that reinforced segregation and funding disparities. Discussion on the narrow scope of Brown and its consequences.

(00:18:58) Chapter 6: Integration vs. Educational Quality
Debate on the merits of integration versus focusing on educational quality through alternative methods such as charter schools and vouchers. Consideration of the mixed outcomes of these approaches.

(00:22:19) Chapter 7: Parental Responsibility and Systemic Solutions
Reflection on the burden placed on parents to seek better education through choice programs. Comparison to historical figures who fought for desegregation. Discussion on the need for systemic solutions rather than relying solely on choice.

(00:25:02) Chapter 8: Future Directions and Pragmatic Solutions
Call for a mix of approaches to improve education, combining integration efforts with initiatives focused on educational quality. Emphasis on the importance of experimentation, evidence collection, and open-minded evaluation of educational policies.

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

Criminal law expert and former federal prosecutor David Sklansky joins Pam and Rich to discuss the New York trial and other cases against former president Trump. From state prosecutions to federal cases, they analyze the defense and prosecution strategies and implications of each trial, shedding light on the legal challenges facing Trump, the first current or former president in U.S. history to face criminal charges.

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• David Sklansky >>> Stanford Law School Page

[00:00:00] Chapter 1: Progress and Impact of the New York Trial

• Discussion of Donald Trump’s ongoing trial in New York related to hush money payments.
• Focus on the efficiency of jury selection and trial progress.
• Analysis of the impact of trial pace on prosecution's case.
• The role of trial speed in influencing juror perceptions.

[00:04:48] Chapter 2: Trump's Response and Gag Order

• Trump's response to the trial and constraints of the gag order.
• Effectiveness of the gag order in curbing Trump's behavior.
• Discussion on Trump's criminal contempt and its implications.
• Analysis of potential consequences and judicial response.

[00:08:58] Chapter 3: Case Strength/Strategy and Jury Perception 

• Evaluation of the strength of the case and potential challenges.
• Impact of jury perception on the trial outcome.
• Insight into trial strategy regarding witness sequencing.
• Discussion on the prosecution's approach to witness testimony.

[00:19:45] Chapter 4: Supreme Court's Role and Case Complexity

• Discussion on the Supreme Court's involvement in pending cases.
• Analysis of case complexity and its impact on trial timelines.

[00:22:56] Chapter 5: Challenges in the Mar-a-Lago Case 

• Examination of challenges and delays in the Mar-a-Lago case.
• Analysis of trial judge's management and potential trial outcomes.

[00:25:49] Chapter 6: Potential Trial Outcomes and Implications 

• Discussion on potential trial outcomes and their implications.
• Overview of civil cases against Trump and their significance.

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

Joining Pam and Rich for this discussion are Professor Daniel Ho and RegLab Fellow Christie Lawrence, JD ’24 (MPP, Harvard Kennedy School of Government).

Dan is the founding director of Stanford’s RegLab (Regulation, Evaluation, and Governance Lab), which builds high-impact partnerships for data science and responsible AI in the public sector. The RegLab has an extensive track record partnering with government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Labor, and Santa Clara County on prototyping and evaluating AI tools to make government more fair, efficient, and transparent. Building on this work, the RegLab also helps agencies strengthen AI governance and operationalize trustworthy AI principles.

Christie, a third-year JD student, worked with RegLab and Stanford’s Innovation Clinic on projects to advise DOL on responsible AI and development practices and to support the work with Prof. Ho on the National AI Advisory Committee, which advises the White House on AI policy. In this interview, we’ll learn about several RegLab projects—and the importance of helping government develop smart AI policy and solutions.

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• Dan Ho >>> Stanford Law School web page

[00:00:00] Chapter 1: Setting the Stage

• Mention of the rapid acceleration of technology and the release of ChatGPT.
• Highlighting the risks associated with AI, such as bias and privacy concerns.
• Discussion on the relationship between AI and governance, including recent developments in AI policy and governance.
• Mention of the Biden administration's executive order on AI and its implications.

[00:03:04] Chapter 2: The Role of Reg Lab and Collaboration with the IRS

• Explanation of the Reg Lab and its purpose.
• Discussion on the need for government agencies to modernize their technology infrastructure.
• Overview of the collaboration with the IRS to improve tax evasion detection using machine learning.
• Discovery of disparities in auditing rates and subsequent IRS reforms.
• Highlighting the intersection of AI, social justice, and government practices.

[00:09:12] Chapter 3: Student Perspective

• Christie Lawrence shares her experience working on AI policy at Stanford Law School.
• Discussion on bridging the gap between policy, law, and technology.
• Impactful work done by students in collaboration with government agencies.

[00:11:38] Chapter 4: AI and Social Justice

• Pam Karlan's experience with AI issues in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
• Examples of algorithmic discrimination and its implications for social justice.
• Discussion on the challenges of addressing AI-related issues in government practices.

[00:23:55] Chapter 5: Future Directions

• Optimism about the future of AI governance and the recent executive order's impact.
• Anticipation of legislative proposals and state-level initiatives in AI regulation.
• Importance of maintaining an open innovation ecosystem and addressing talent gaps in government agencies.

[00:25:55] Chapter 6: Audience Questions
 

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

Professor Easha Anand, co-director of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, joins Professors Pam Karlan and Richard Thompson Ford, along with Gareth Fowler, JD '24, for a discussion about three cases that she argued before the Court this term, the people behind the case titles, and what it takes to represent them at the highest court in the land. 

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• Easha Anand >>> Stanford Law School Page

(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Setting the Stage

• Easha Anand shares the story of Mr. Ciavarini and the impact of the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic on restoring his reputation. Hosts Rich Ford and Pam Karlan introduce the episode and guests Professor Easha Anand and Gareth Fowler, discussing their work with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

(00:01:52) Chapter 2: Joining the Clinic and the Clinic's Unique Approach

• Gareth Fowler describes his experience joining the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and the process of working on cases as a student. Easha Anand explains the distinctive features of the clinic's model, emphasizing the significant role of students in producing legal work.

(00:05:38) Chapter 3: Working on Cases and the Sarbanes-Oxley Case

• Gareth Fowler discusses the specific cases he worked on during his time at the clinic, including Mendez-Colleen and United States v. Jackson. Easha Anand recounts her experience arguing the case of Murray v. UBS before the Supreme Court and the significance of the outcome for whistleblower protection.

(00:15:52) Chapter 4: Insights from Oral Arguments

• Easha Anand reflects on the differences between arguing cases at lower courts versus the Supreme Court, emphasizing the unique challenges and opportunities of Supreme Court advocacy.

(00:18:16) Chapter 5: Clinic's Trip to D.C.

• Gareth Fowler shares his experience attending Supreme Court oral arguments in Washington, D.C., providing insights into the courtroom dynamics and the significance of the proceedings.

(00:20:27) Chapter 6: Preparing for Future Cases and Impactful Moments

• Easha Anand discusses the upcoming case of Chiavarini and the journey of preparing for oral arguments, highlighting the client's story and the clinic's commitment to justice. Pam Karlan and Easha Anand reflect on the profound impact of their work with clients and the meaningful experiences shared during their collaboration with the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic.

[00:24:23] Chapter 7: Audience Question and Answer

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

Dive into the complex history of America's drug war with George Fisher, former Massachusetts Attorney General and acclaimed scholar of criminal law. In his latest book, "Beware Euphoria," Fisher explores the moral and racial dimensions of drug prohibition, challenging conventional narratives. Join the conversation on Stanford Legal as Fisher discusses the impact of racial justice movements on drug policy, including the legalization of cannabis, offering profound insights into a contentious issue shaping legal and social discourse.

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• George Fisher >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Beware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's War on Drugs

(00:00:00) Chapter 1: The Origins of Drug Prohibition 

• Podcast guest, George Fisher, traces the history of drug prohibition, highlighting the departure of cannabis use from medical preservation. He also discusses the 19th-century roots of drug prohibition, particularly the moral concerns driving the anti-drug laws.

(00:11:42) Chapter 2: Racial Narratives and Mass Incarceration

• Rich Ford discusses the common narrative linking mass incarceration to the war on drugs and its alleged racial motivations. Fisher challenges this narrative, arguing that early drug laws were about protecting whites' moral purity rather than targeting people of color. The conversation explores the racial dynamics of early drug laws, emphasizing the racism of indifference rather than explicit targeting.

(00:20:20) Chapter 3: Moral Valence of Mind-Altering Drugs 

• Fisher delves into the historical moral perceptions of mind-altering drugs, tracing back to Early Christian notions of reason and morality.He explains why certain drugs, like opium and later marijuana, were seen as threats to moral character, while alcohol was treated differently due to its varied uses.

(00:26:15) Chapter 4: Legalization of Marijuana and Racial Justice 

• The conversation shifts to the legalization of marijuana, highlighting its historical bans and recent movements towards legalization. Concerns about the increasing potency of marijuana and its potential backlash are explored, suggesting a need for careful regulation and messaging.

(00:30:19) Conclusion: Closing Remarks

• Rich Ford wraps up the conversation with George Fisher discussing insights and emphasizing the importance of discussing the ongoing struggle with drugs and intoxicants.

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

Pam Karlan and labor law expert and former NLRB chair William Gould IV explore the quickly changing arena of college athletics including the push for student-athlete unionization, the debate over compensation, and other issues at the intersection of sports and academia. From the Dartmouth College men's basketball team's union election to the broader challenges facing university athletics, they discuss the complex issues shaping the law and the future of collegiate sports.

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  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• William Gould IV >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Recent Q&A with Gould >>> Stanford's Bill Gould on the Dartmouth College Basketball  Union Vote

 

(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction to the Intersection of Sports and Labor Law

• Pam Karlan introduces the topic of sports law and labor law, highlighting the recent developments in the field and the significance of the intersection between the two areas. Bill and Pam look at an overview of the Dartmouth College men's basketball team unionization case and its implications for the traditional understanding of student-athlete status.

(00:02:03) Chapter 2: The Evolving Definition of Student-Athlete

• William B. Gould IV delves into the historical context of the student-athlete designation, tracing its origins and evolution over time. He discusses the complexities of defining student-athletes within the framework of labor law and examines the factors that have contributed to the recent challenges to this classification.

(00:06:49) Chapter 3: Labor Law Considerations in Collegiate Athletics

• Gould explores the key principles of labor law as they apply to collegiate athletics, emphasizing the factors that determine employee status and the obligations of universities as employers. The chapter addresses issues such as control over athletes, compensation, and the role of collective bargaining in shaping the future of collegiate sports.

(00:10:00) Chapter 4: Implications for Intercollegiate Sports

• Karlan and Gould discuss the broader implications of the Dartmouth case and similar unionization efforts for intercollegiate sports as a whole. They examine the challenges posed by conference realignment, Title IX considerations, and the evolving landscape of athlete compensation, including name, image, and likeness rights.

(00:14:23) Chapter 5: Legal and Policy Perspectives

• The conversation shifts to a discussion of the legal and policy considerations surrounding student-athlete rights and the role of the courts in shaping future outcomes. Gould offers insights into the potential impact of Supreme Court decisions and judicial attitudes towards higher education institutions and their treatment of athletes.

(00:21:08) Chapter 6: Looking Ahead

• In the final chapter, Karlan and Gould reflect on the future of collegiate athletics in light of ongoing legal battles and shifting societal norms. They explore potential scenarios for reform and address lingering questions about the balance between academic and athletic pursuits, the role of unions in protecting athlete rights, and the broader implications for labor relations in the sports industry.

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