This week, Nicole Polisar revisits the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the first U.S. court case ever broadcast live on radio. Nicole reconstructs the drama between defense attorney Clarence Darrow and prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, examining how the case reflected early 20th-century tensions between religion, education, and democracy. Drawing on authentic courtroom dialogue and later Supreme Court decisions such as Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, and Kitzmiller v. Dover, the episode traces the enduring constitutional and cultural impact of a trial that continues to define the boundary between science and belief.

If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources to learn more:

https://archive.org/details/worldsmostfamous0000john/page/178/mode/1up

https://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

https://www.history.com/articles/scopes-trial

Historically, U.S. courts and lawmakers have wrestled with, and debated, how far the government can- and should- reach into our private lives and under what circumstances. From the mid-century to today, we have witnessed numerous examples of federal overreach and abuse of power. From J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI’s Cointelpro surveillance programs, the Nixon Watergate scandal, and the Church Committee investigations, the Patriot Act and Edward Snowden’s leak of NSA warrantless surveillance, each generation new technology outpace old legal limits. This is especially true in the age of personalized tech, mass surveillance capabilities, and non-stop mass data collection and transfer.

In today's episode, associate editor Jay Fort considers the historical interplay between the 4th Amendment and technology, exploring how its protections against unreasonable searches and seizures continue to be stress tested, as the Trump Administration urges- and compels- government agencies, as well as state governments, to provide personal data on millions of Americans.

We will look at the Federal contracts with private technology companies, like Palantir, who have been tasked with centralizing massive datasets of Americans persona- presumptively private- data. To provide a helpful foundation, we will bring in a Constitutional law scholar, Curt and Linda Rodin Associate Professor of Law and Social Justice, Professor Alan Raphael, to help us understand the 4th Amendment in historical-to-modern context.

Here, we consider historical challenges and modern parallels, focusing on the 4th amendment and Constitutional challenges, examining the ever-growing risks of emerging technology. In the end, the question remains: can our 4th Amendment privacy rights survive an ever expansive, and pervasive, wave of technological innovation and surveillance applications? And, at what point, will we look around and realize that in our ambition - like Icarus- we have finally “Flown to close to the sun.”

If your interested in the episode's topic please check out these resources to learn more:

https://cardozolawreview.com/remedying-unconstitutional-immigration-enforcement/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-1/ALDE_00000055/

https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/privacy/privacy-laws-us-vs-eu-gdpr/#the-basics-of-each-law

In this week's episode, associate editor Carter Pasternak explores President Donald Trump’s 2025 efforts to federalize state National Guard units and deploy active-duty military forces in U.S. cities, beginning in California, extending to Washington, D.C., and now Chicago. It examines how these actions raise profound constitutional questions about the balance between state sovereignty and federal power. The discussion traces the issues’ constitutional roots, outlines the statutory framework, and explores possible loopholes available to the executive. The episode reviews Newsom v. Trump before turning to Illinois, where similar legal challenges could set a lasting precedent for the future role of the military in American civil life and the scope of presidential discretionary power within the states.

If you're interested in the episode's topic please check out these resources to learn more:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-does-us-national-guard-do

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/defining--rebellion--in-10-u.s.c.---12406-and-the-insurrection-act

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/domestic-deployment-military-explained/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained?utm.com

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/presidents-power-call-out-national-guard-not-blank-check?utm.com

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-can-the-president-put-soldiers-on-the-streets-of-los-angeles/

https://statesunited.org/resources/newsom-v-trump/

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lingering-uncertainty-in-judge-breyer-s-newsom-v.-trump-ruling?utm.com

This is the introductory episode for a series on “Future of Law School”. This episode establishes that there are real issues facing legal education and begins to unpack some of them. Future episodes will delve deeper into the issues as well as possible solutions.

In this week's episode Senior Editor Rachel Still unpacks the legal system’s embrace of “excited delirium,” a discredited medical theory used to explain deaths in police custody. We trace its origins in the flimsy case reports of Miami medical examiner Charles Wetli, its spread through small, deeply flawed studies, and its weaponization by law enforcement and expert witnesses. Drawing on the work of Physicians for Human Rights and Osagie K. Obasogie’s Harvard Law Review article, we explore how courts transformed pseudo-science into “legal fact” through precedent and evidentiary shortcuts. We discuss the racial genealogy of pathologizing Blackness—from drapetomania to schizophrenia to excited delirium—and how these diagnoses have served to legitimize state violence. The episode also highlights recent developments: major medical organizations rejecting the term, states like California, Colorado, and Minnesota banning its use, and the Elijah McClain trials exposing its deadly consequences. Ultimately, we argue that excited delirium isn’t medicine—it’s narrative, power, and the law working to shield the state from accountability.

The Podvocate went live from the activities fair to ask attendees the question: "What has been the most surprising thing about law school so far?"

The incoming editorial board members for the Podvocate introduce themselves. We look forward to a great year of producing!

Please enjoy a recording of The Podvocate's first-ever live event held on April 22, 2025, titled "Resistance: A Panel on Practice-Based Activism." The panel was moderated by editors-in-chief Casey Callahan and Ben Recht and featured guests Rachel Cohen, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal Ken Upton.

This podcast episode explores the question “Is law school worth it?” from a personal perspective as a part-time student balancing work, tuition costs, and home responsibilities. The host shares their experience funding school through their salary and scholarships, while acknowledging the emotional and practical impact on their spouse, who has taken on more household duties. They weigh the financial burden, the time investment, and the sacrifices against the long-term career benefits and personal fulfillment that law school can offer. Ultimately, the episode highlights how the value of law school is deeply personal, and encourages listeners to reflect on their own goals, support systems, and definitions of success.

Sovereign Citizens are a group without a central authoritative ideology; but a throughline that holds that US law does not apply to them. The most common idea ius that the passage of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War created a second class of citizen, and that only by reading up on your rights as a “living person” can one avail themselves of the blessings of “Common Law”. In this episode, I examined some of the consequences of this utterly fake ideology, and what happens when it is argued before a judge. Though I do find their ideas absurd, I try throughout the episode to keep the humanity of pseudolaw’s practitioners in mind.

Recourses:

Overview on Sovereign Citizen Ideology:

https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Sov%20citizens%20quick%20guide%20Nov%2013.pdf

Video of Michigan Sovereign Citizen/ Ernie Tertellgate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxMzcFJ-Lc&t=1039s