UnCommon Law

This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring one of the most expansive Federal Trade Commission proposals in modern history: a nationwide ban on noncompete clauses. Coming May 31st.

It’s been almost 20 years since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, intentionally or not, set an affirmative action countdown in motion. On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court heard arguments that Harvard and the University of North Carolina go too far in their use of race in admissions. Will the diversity rationale — the heart of affirmative action defenses since 1978 — convince this staunchly conservative court?Also, while diversity has been the reason affirmative action has survived legal tests — was it ever the best reason, under the Constitution, for affirmative action? Or have advocates been hamstrung by an argument that doesn't go far enough?Are race-conscious admissions policies about to fall? The conclusion to our four-part series on affirmative action at the Supreme Court.Guests: Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions William Lee, partner at WilmerHale Kimberly Robinson, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law Michelle Adams, professor at the University of Michigan Law School ***Host/Producer: Matthew S. SchwartzEditor/Executive Producer: Josh BlockCover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

For decades, over multiple decisions, the Supreme Court has been clear: The U.S. Constitution allows colleges to take race into account when they craft their incoming classes. And yet race-conscious admissions policies continue to face attacks.Today, on part three of our four-part series on affirmative action, we’ll meet the man who has perhaps done more than any other in recent memory fighting to end the use of race in America’s public policies. Will Edward Blum be successful in convincing today’s solidly conservative high court to end affirmative action in education?Guests: Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law Garrett Epps, professor at the University of Oregon School of Law ***Host/Producer: Matthew S. SchwartzEditor/Executive Producer: Josh BlockCover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

In 1978, the Supreme Court allowed colleges to take race into account when crafting their incoming classes. Throughout the '80s and '90s, that’s what many schools did: To get a diverse incoming class, universities used race as one factor among many.But some schools get a lot of applicants — tens of thousands of students applying for just a few thousand spots. How do you complete an individualized review of so many people? How do you make sure you consider race consistently across those tens of thousands? Is there a way to streamline the process while still complying with what Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. said the Equal Protection Clause requires?This is the second episode of UnCommon Law's three-part series about the Supreme Court's biggest affirmative action in education cases. In the first episode we looked at the 1978 case of Allan Bakke, an applicant to medical school who was denied admission. In this episode, we explore the 2003 cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.Guests include: Diego Bernal — Texas state representative and former president of the Latino Law Students Association at the University of Michigan Law School Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School Greg Stohr — Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and former president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Terence Pell — President of the Center for Individual Rights Marvin Krislov — President of Pace University, and former vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan Lee Bollinger — President of Columbia University, and former president of the University of Michigan Agnes Aleobua — Principal of Citizens Academy Glenville in Cleveland, and former student intervenor at the University of Michigan Cristina Rodríguez — Professor at Yale Law School and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ***Host/Producer: Matthew S. SchwartzEditor/Executive Producer: Josh BlockCover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

For more than 50 years, colleges and universities around the country have taken race into account as they craft their incoming classes. But now a pair of lawsuits could change the face of higher education in this country. It’s the biggest challenge to affirmative action in a generation. And, given the makeup of this Supreme Court, it is very likely affirmative action in college admissions could be found unconstitutional.Over three episodes, we will explore the legal issues around affirmative action in higher education. Does the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit all discrimination based on race? Or is benign discrimination permissible — taking race into account in order to help groups that have been marginalized? Does the constitution leave room to remedy society’s ills?In this episode, we explore the 1978 case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke — the first challenge to affirmative action decided by the Supreme Court. Guests include: * Robert “Bo” Links — Attorney for Allan Bakke * Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School * Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and former president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund * Garrett Epps — Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law * John Jeffries — Former dean of the University of Virginia School of Law ***Host/Producer: Matthew S. SchwartzEditor/Executive Producer: Josh BlockCover Art: Jonathan HurtarteTo comment on this episode, tag @BLaw and @SchwartzReports on Twitter!

A pair of lawsuits has made its way to the Supreme Court — and just who gets into which college could change dramatically. This season on UnCommon Law, we’ll explore the arguments — and the people — driving this latest battle over affirmative action. Does the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibit all discrimination based on race? Can the Constitution be used to remedy society’s ills? Coming October 25th, part one of a three-part series on affirmative action, from Bloomberg Industry Group.For more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/podcasts/uncommon-law

Law firms have a gender equity problem. Data has shown that women struggle to reach the upper levels of the profession, and that those who do had to work harder than their male counterparts. For example, two thirds of female attorneys say they've been perceived as less committed to their careers, compared with just two percent of male attorneys, according to a 2019 ABA survey.The reasons why aren't a mystery: the pay gap, the "motherhood penalty," legacy origination, a dearth of male mentors, and sexism, to name a few.But what are the solutions? If the ideal, female-friendly law firm could be created from scratch, with an infinite amount of start-up capital, how would it be done? We posed that question to nearly a dozen people in the legal industry, including diversity consultants, law firm partners, ex-partners, associates, and women who were on track to make partner but felt they were forced to leave. In this podcast, they tell us what they'd prioritize and some of the challenges that can't be fixed with money.Do you have an idea of how to create a women-friendly law firm? Share your thoughts with us by clicking here.

In a landmark 2nd Amendment decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down New York's gun licensing law. It's a decision that transforms where and when a gun can be carried. And, for the first time, the Court recognized a constitutional right to carry a gun outside of the home, in public. If you know this is a big deal, but you're not sure why, or you just want a refresher on how we go here, we've got you covered.Today we're releasing an episode of our Cases & Controversies podcast for our [Un]Common Law listeners. This episode was originally released in November, just after oral arguments in the case. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin explain what it's all about and why it is a "landmark decision."And, for the latest on this case and the Supreme Court go to news.bloomberglaw.com.

The new era of name, image, and likeness in college sports has seen rapid change. For instance, initially athletes were signing deals directly with brands and companies. Now, so-called “NIL collectives” are amassing multi-million-dollar funds to attract star recruits. Critics say these funds are being used as back-door recruiting inducements which violate the NCAA’s interim NIL policy.Many college coaches and administrators have complained that the interim policy is vague and unenforceable. But that may be just the beginning thanks to several new cases progressing in both federal court and at the National Labor Relations Board. Either could potentially alter the landscape even further—making college sports a completely free market or redefining some college teams as employees of the schools they play for.In the final episode of our two-part series on NIL in college sports we speak with: Stewart Mandel, editor-in-chief of college football coverage at the Athletic. Jeffery Kessler, co-executive chairman at Winston and Strawn, and co-lead counsel for the athletes in NCAA vs. Alston. Ekow Yankah, professor of Law at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law and author of “Is NIL Destroying College Sports.” Audrey Anderson, chair of the higher education practice group at Bass Berry & Sims. ***Host/Producer: Adam AllingtonEditor/Executive Producer: Josh BlockCover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

College sports is closing out the first year of the name, image and likeness era for athletes.Since July 1 2021, athletes have been free to earn money from marketing deals on their NIL rights, including through endorsements, appearances, modeling, and hosting camps. One UCLA basketball player even launched his own cryptocurrency. The right of publicity now belongs to collegiate athletes. This comes after decades of strictly enforced rules barring student athletes from receiving any compensation beyond the value of their scholarships.NIL rights mark an inflection point in both college sports broadly, as well as the decades-long legal battle to allow athletes to share in the billion-dollar collegiate sports industry. But lingering questions remain. Even among those who say athletes deserve to earn money, some say the current NIL state laws and NCAA guidelines aren't working.In this first episode of a two-part series, the [Un]Common Law podcast will examine the NIL landscape, some of the cases that led to this new era, the patchwork of state laws, and the legal and policy concerns going forward.In this episode we speak with: Kyle Jahner, a reporter covering trademark and intellectual property for Bloomberg Law. Tim Nevious, a sports attorney who was part of the original legal team that brought the Alston vs. NCAA case. David McGriff, an private practice attorney who specializes in setting up NIL deals.   ***Host/Producer: Adam AllingtonEditor/Executive Producer: Josh BlockCover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte