In this episode of Passing Judgment, we explore the recent oral arguments in two cases concerning social media, state laws, and the First Amendment. We walk through the complexities of the justices' struggle to establish a legal framework for addressing content moderation by social media platforms, highlighting the unprecedented nature of these issues in the context of constitutional law. Tune in for an informative discussion on the ever-changing landscape of law and the profound impact it has on our lives. 
 Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: 
 1️⃣  Big Supreme Court News: The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case regarding a former president's immunity from criminal prosecution has significant implications. This case raises critical questions about the constitutionality of immunity for a former president and the potential impact on future legal proceedings. 
 2️⃣  Cases Involving Internet, First Amendment, and Social Media: The recent oral arguments on state laws attempting to regulate social media platforms' content moderation choices brought to the forefront the absence of a clear constitutional framework and precedents for addressing such modern technological issues. The Justices' struggle to fit these cases within existing legal categories highlights the need for new frameworks to address emerging technology-related legal concerns. 
 3️⃣  Role of Congress: The lack of national standards from Congress further complicates the situation, leaving the Justices in a dilemma about who should be making decisions regarding the regulation of social media content moderation.  
 Follow Our Host: On Threads: @LevinsonJessica 


The Implications of Supreme Court Cases on Social Media Content Moderation and State Laws

Is the constitution in crisis? This podcast is for people who are curious about politics and the law and how the biggest political and legal issues of the moment affect you. Pull up a chair and join host Jessica Levinson, a professor at LMU’s Loyola Law School, and a rotating cast of experts. Jessica will be joined by journalists, politicians, political scientists, lawyers, and many others. 

Listen to Jessica and her guests for a wry, and sometimes irreverent take on the most pressing issues of our time. What are the laws of our democracy? How are they changing? And what does that mean for your daily life?

Arts

Literature

Performing Arts

Design

Food

Fashion & Beauty

Visual Arts

News

Politics

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson dives deep into the legal intricacies surrounding protests on college campuses, specifically addressing First Amendment protections and relevant federal laws. By discussing these themes, Jessica Levinson aims to provide a legal framework for understanding the complexities of First Amendment protections and other related legal aspects in the context of college protests, influenced by ongoing events like the war in Gaza but strictly from a legal perspective, avoiding political discussions. Join us as Jessica provides a thorough legal framework to help us understand these complex dynamics, setting the stage for informed discussions on rights, responsibilities, and the reach of the law in educational settings. 
 Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: 
 1️⃣ First Amendment Protections in Protests: The episode delves into how the First Amendment ensures robust protection for speech and expressive conduct during protests.  
 2️⃣ Limitations on Speech: While the First Amendment offers broad protections, there are permissible limitations. Levinson explains that these restrictions must be content-neutral—applied uniformly regardless of the speaker's identity or viewpoint and should ideally serve a legitimate purpose like ensuring safety, without being a pretext for suppressing undesirable viewpoints. 
 3️⃣ Federal Laws Impacting Protests: Levinson addresses how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (particularly Title 6) intersects with campus protests. Actions during protests that discriminate based on race, color, or national origin, or that disrupt educational opportunities for these groups, might constitute violations under Title 6. 
 
 Follow Our Host: On Threads: @LevinsonJessica

Understanding First Amendment Rights During Campus Protests

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve deep into the complex world of voting rights and election integrity with renowned UCLA professor Rick Hasen. The discussion navigates through the intricacies of Hasen's recent books, "A Real Right to Vote," where he advocates for a constitutional amendment to solidify voting protections, and "Cheap Speech," which examines the dangers of disinformation in our political landscape. Join Jessica Levinson as she and Hasen dissect the balance between maintaining ballot security and ensuring broad voting access, the role of the Supreme Court in shaping these rights, and the urgent challenge of combating political disinformation in the digital age.  
 Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: 
 1️⃣ Voting Restrictions and Integrity: Rick Hasen discusses the necessity of certain voter restrictions and identification verification to maintain the integrity of elections. He acknowledges the challenges and criticisms associated particularly with rules around absentee ballots and instances of election fraud, highlighting the complexity of balancing accessibility with security. 
 2️⃣ Disinformation in Politics: Jessica Levinson brings up the issue of disinformation, and Hasen elaborates on its detrimental impact on elections, as detailed in his book "Cheap Speech." They discuss the challenges posed by social media and the spread of false information, especially during the 2020 election cycle, and the balance between free speech and the necessity for accurate information. 
 3️⃣ Legal Uncertainties and Electoral Litigation: Hasen notes the unique, decentralized, and highly partisan nature of U.S. elections, contributing to frequent litigation over voter registration and eligibility. He expresses concern about the Supreme Court's approach to such issues, fearing that ongoing legal uncertainties could delay crucial resolutions, especially in a polarized political climate. 
 Follow Our Host: On Threads: @LevinsonJessica

Examining Voter Access and Election Integrity with Rick Hasen

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the intricacies of the New York hush money payment case involving a former president – a state criminal trial of immense historical significance as it's the first to proceed against an ex-commander-in-chief. Host Jessica Levinson, alongside court and justice reporter Ella Lee, unpacks the legal complexities facing the prosecution, particularly the challenge of proving intentional fraud linked to the 34 felony counts of false business records. Join Jessica and Ella as they navigate the tangled web of legal battles surrounding one of the nation's most polarizing political figures. 
 
 Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: 
 1️⃣ New York Hush Money Payment Case: This segment introduces the trial concerning former President Trump's alleged hush money payments, which is notable for being the first criminal trial against a former president in U.S. history. There's a discussion on the legal challenges, particularly the difficulty of proving intentional fraud and the connection to another crime. 
 2️⃣ Legal Nuances and Jury Impact: Jessica and Ella discuss anticipated challenges for both the prosecution and the defense. For the prosecution, convincing the jury of the witnesses' credibility, especially Michael Cohen's, is anticipated to be difficult. The defense is expected to face challenges due to the case's high profile and the polarizing figure of Trump. 
 3️⃣ Trial Timing and Political Considerations: Speculation about when other cases might go to trial before the November elections is discussed, including the implications of Department of Justice policies regarding pursuing cases close to elections and considerations judges might have on trial scheduling. 
 Follow Our Host: On Threads: @LevinsonJessica

Dissecting the New York Hush Money Trial Against Former President Trump with Ella Lee

In this riveting episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson delves into the intricate legal battles surrounding former President Trump and the classified documents dispute. Our esteemed guest, Sarah Wire of the Los Angeles Times, unveils the complexities of Trump's assertion of ownership over crucial documents, a stance that's been thwarted by Judge Keenan's recent decision. Throughout the episode, we unravel the strategic delays in the courtroom, weigh the public's right to pre-election transparency, and examine how the pursuit of justice is not merely about the charges themselves, but about the far-reaching implications of cover-ups and electoral integrity. Join us as we pass judgment on these crucial issues that define not just legal boundaries, but also the very contours of our democracy.  
 Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: 
 1️⃣ Significance of January 6th Insurrection: The podcast also deeply examines the January 6 insurrection, with Sarah Wire sharing firsthand accounts and emphasizing its historical significance. The conversation covers the actions leading to the insurrection, its classification, and the personal impact on those who reported from within the Capitol during the event. 
 2️⃣ Presidential Records Act and Classified Documents: The Presidential Records Act is discussed, particularly in relation to former President Trump's claims over certain records. The rulings by Judges Keenan and Cannon are highlighted, exploring the legal boundaries of document ownership by a president. 
 3️⃣ Public Interest in Trial Information: The episode delves into the debate surrounding the timing of trial information release, particularly in the context of elections. The emphasis is on whether the public should have access to trial details before casting votes and how reporters view their role in this process. 
 
 Follow Our Host: On Threads: @LevinsonJessica 


January 6th Insight: Sarah Wire on Covering Insurrection and National Security

In this episode of Passing Judgment, esteemed author and political analyst Jonathan Alter delves into the complexities of Jimmy Carter's presidency, exploring how external factors such as inflation and unemployment marred its perception. Alter highlights similarities between Carter's challenges and those facing current President Joe Biden, drawing attention to historical influences on today's politics. The episode also examines the New York Hush Money case against Donald Trump, emphasizing its significance for law enforcement and democratic norms. Tune in to this episode of Passing Judgment for an encompassing discussion that charts the precarious balance between law, politics, and the ever-changing tapestry of American leadership. 
 
 Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: 
 1️⃣ Comparisons Between Carter and Biden: Alter draws parallels between the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden, observing the influence of past presidents on current political scenarios, along with the challenges they face due to changing times and issues. 
 2️⃣ New York Hush Money Case and Trump: The podcast touches upon the legal troubles surrounding Donald Trump, specifically the New York Hush Money case, and its potential ramifications on the electorate. Alter underscores the gravity of such cases concerning the rule of law. 
 3️⃣ Condition of the Republican Party: There's an assessment of the Republican Party's evolution, particularly its departure from traditional conservative values, allowing the rise of Donald Trump and presenting new directions for the party. 
 
 Follow Our Host: On Threads: @LevinsonJessica

The Implications of Supreme Court Cases on Social Media Content Moderation and State Laws

Download our free app to listen on your phone