Do courts have the expertise to decide on important environmental law issues? Pam Karlan and Rich Ford speak with environmental law expert Debbie Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford, about recent Supreme Court decisions affecting environmental and administrative law--including the Court's decision to overturn decades of settled law by overturning Chevron. What are the implications of the Court's recent blockbuster environmental decisions--the impact on the Clean Air Act, and broader consequences for regulatory agencies and environmental policies. Tune in to explore how these legal shifts could reshape the landscape of environmental regulation in the United States.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Deborah Sivas >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00)  Chapter 1: Introduction and OverviewPam and Rich welcome Professor Debbie Sivas from Stanford's Environmental Law Clinic. They provide an overview of significant Supreme Court cases impacting environmental and administrative law, highlighting the pivotal Loeb or Wright decision that ended Chevron deference.(00:02:06) Chapter 2: Chevron Deference and Its Implications Explained Discussion on the historical context and implications of Chevron deference, with Debbie Sivas explaining its significance and how its removal might affect future legal interpretations and administrative agency power.(00:09:12) Chapter 3: Expert Opinions vs. Judicial InterpretationsExamination of the Supreme Court's approach to statutory interpretation versus agency expertise, highlighting cases like Ohio against EPA and the challenges posed by the court's stance on scientific and technical matters.(00:16:12) Chapter 4: The Role of the Major Questions Doctrine and Non-Delegation DoctrineAnalysis of the Major Questions Doctrine's impact on regulatory power and the potential resurgence of the Non-Delegation Doctrine, focusing on how these legal principles shape environmental policy and agency authority.(00:18:57) Chapter 5: The Ohio Against EPA Case and Its Broader ImplicationsDetailed discussion on the Ohio against EPA case, its current status, and the implications of the Supreme Court's emergency stay decision on future regulatory actions and environmental protections.

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 WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:David Sklansky >>> Stanford Law School PageDavid Sklansky’s Book >>> A Pattern of Violence: How the Law Classifies Crimes and What It Means for Justice (00:00:00) Introduction and OverviewIntroduction 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 RationaleDiscussion 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 RulingsReview 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 AccountabilityDiscussion 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 ImplicationsAnalysis 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.

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 WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks: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 ActionJennifer 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.

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.

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 WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Nora Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School PageDavid Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School PageChapter 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.

Rick Banks, alongside Rich and Pam, critically analyzes the impact of Brown v. Board of Education on American education, discussing the slow progress in desegregation and exploring alternative approaches to achieve racial and socioeconomic integration in schools.

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 WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:David Sklansky >>> Stanford Law School Page[00:00:00] Chapter 1: Progress and Impact of the New York TrialDiscussion 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 OrderTrump'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 ComplexityDiscussion 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.

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 WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Dan Ho >>> Stanford Law School web page[00:00:00] Chapter 1: Setting the StageMention 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 IRSExplanation 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 PerspectiveChristie 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 JusticePam 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 DirectionsOptimism 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 

Easha Anand, Co-director of Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, discusses cases argued before the Court, their impact, and unique clinic approach. Students share experiences, legal challenges faced, and preparing for Supreme Court arguments. The podcast delves into whistleblowing cases, client defense complexities, and student involvement in legal battles.

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 WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:George Fisher >>> Stanford Law School PageBeware 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 IncarcerationRich 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 RemarksRich Ford wraps up the conversation with George Fisher discussing insights and emphasizing the importance of discussing the ongoing struggle with drugs and intoxicants.