Stanford Legal

Stanford’s Anne Joseph O’Connell examines who can step in when a top federal position is vacant and what recent court decisions could mean for how those positions are filled.

The ACLU’s Anthony Romero unpacks a sweeping docket—from a Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship to voting rights and free speech—as the rule of law is tested.

In the final discussion of The Declaration at 250 series, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, argues the Declaration’s natural-rights principles call Americans to civic virtue, substantive justice, and human flourishing—not license. Jonathan Gienapp, Professor of History at Stanford University, emphasizes the Declaration’s political core—non-domination and self-government—and shows how disputes over liberty, democracy, and inequality began almost immediately after the founding. Together they frame the Declaration less as settled creed than as an enduring argument Americans must continually work out.

Former state solicitors general Michael Mongan and Kevin Gallagher discuss the evolving role of state solicitors general and how states work together to shape legal battles before the Supreme Court.

Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and former Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State, argues the Declaration’s principles remain essential despite rising left- and right-wing critiques. Stephen Haber, Stanford Professor of Political Science, History, and Economics, contends universities’ governance and leadership pipelines—not just faculty—are driving the drift away from civic-focused liberal education.

Alexander Tsesis argues the Declaration’s natural-rights logic limits First Amendment protection to conscious human beings, not AI systems. Anne Twitty adds historical nuance and asks whether abolitionists’ strong commitment to the public’s “right to hear” could inadvertently support a listener-centered case for protecting AI outputs. Tsesis replies that listener rights matter, but the First Amendment’s core remains human, speaker-centered expression.

Stanford’s Allen Weiner examines how the U.S. war with Iran raises questions about the president’s power to wage war and negotiate peace.

Barnett argues the Declaration of Independence is foundational law that sets government’s purposes and limits, so constitutional interpretation should presume liberty and demand clear authority for restrictions. Volokh agrees the Declaration is crucial but sees it mainly as political argument and inspiration, not binding law, except where anchored in constitutional text like the Ninth Amendment. Their debate turns on whether the Declaration’s first principles can function as legally relevant constraints on government power.

Justice Clint Bolick argues the Declaration of Independence is woven directly into state constitutions and can be used to enforce stronger protections for liberty than the federal Constitution. Rich Ford broadens the lens, urging attention to state and local constitutionalism while warning that “natural rights” has historically supported competing visions of government power.

The episode argues the Declaration is both a statement of rights and a framework for legitimate government. Tino Cuéllar stresses the tension between universal ideals and state power, while Larry Kramer highlights the Declaration’s legal roots and its evolving meaning over time. Together, they show it as both blueprint and battleground.

Stanford’s Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved.

Jeff Fisher discusses a term marked by major rulings across executive power, voting, and civil rights, and what they signal about the Court’s trajectory.

The episode examines the Declaration of Independence’s claim that people may have a duty—not just a right—to overthrow tyrannical government. Martha Minow explores possible foundations for that duty in natural law, religion, international norms, and psychology, while Jenny Martinez emphasizes the Declaration’s mutual pledge as an enduring obligation to fulfill its promises across American history. Together, they highlight the tension between universal ideals and the duties of a particular political community.

Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz discuss their proposal to require leading AI firms to pay taxes in equity, reshaping how the gains from AI are distributed

In the opening episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces a discussion with remarks by Condoleezza Rice and a response from David Kennedy on what makes democracy work. Rice emphasizes institutions and civil society; Kennedy traces evolving ideas of equality and warns about declining trust.

Nearly 250 years after its adoption, the Declaration of Independence remains one of America’s most revered—and most disputed—texts. In Declaration at 250, Stanford Law’s Constitutional Law Center and Stanford Legal bring together leading scholars, historians, and jurists from across the ideological spectrum to ask a single urgent question: What does the Declaration mean for Americans today? Introduced by Professor Michael McConnell, the series explores the conditions that sustain democratic self-government, confronts modern criticisms of the founding, and considers whether the Declaration implies not only rights but duties. Across eight conversations, it examines the Declaration’s influence on state constitutions, its structural ideas about government, whether it has legal force, how its principles translate to emerging challenges like artificial intelligence, and whether it still serves—as Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. argued—as America’s enduring promissory note to the future.

Lucas Guttentag discusses the Trump administration’s immigration policies and the legal battles reshaping the U.S. immigration system

Judge J. Michael Luttig on the Rule of Law in an Era of Executive Overreach

Former Justice Department officials reflect on an institution at a crossroads

Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily on the Supreme Court’s latest decision on redistricting and minority representation.

The ACLU’s Sophia Lin Lakin discusses voting access and the redistricting battles shaping political power

Stanford’s Greg Ablavsky on the history behind the birthright case

Stanford Law Alum Darien Shanske on Wealth, Fairness, and California’s Proposed Billionaire Tax

Jennifer Chacón discusses how immigration crackdowns are reshaping policing and public life

Supreme Court limits IEEPA tariff power in a 6–3 ruling as Al Sykes and Pam Karlan explain the impact on Congress, trade, and what’s next

Deborah Sivas on the EPA’s Rescission of the Endangerment Finding

The ACLU’s Anthony Romero unpacks a sweeping docket—from a Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship to voting rights and free speech—as the rule of law is tested.

Stanford’s Robert MacCoun shows how scientific habits can sharpen judgment and strengthen civil discourse in a polarized society.

What happens when the legal tools meant to protect democracy are used to weaken it? Kim Scheppele explains.

Stanford Law’s Allen Weiner explores developments in Venezuela and the role—and limits—of international law

Political Violence, Hate Groups, and the Rule of Law

Urgent legal questions about privacy protections of the nation’s largest collection of personal data and unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley in Washington

Mila Sohoni on the New Legal Landscape

What happens when long-standing norms begin to erode? Jonathan Wroblewski discusses his decades at the DOJ and the forces shaping federal justice

Stanford Law’s Michelle Mello discusses how sweeping changes in federal health policy are reshaping public health--and leading states to fill the void

Legal historian and constitutional law scholar Professor Bernadette Meyler cautions that the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard threatens the “presumption of regularity” that underpins the rule of law

Pam Karlan and Bob Weisberg unpack the Comey and James indictments, and what they reveal about the rule of law in a politicized justice system

The biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952.

Stanford Law Researchers Discuss How Lobbying Shapes the Political Battlefield

Stanford Law’s Lisa Ouellette discusses the rollback of federal support for vital academic research, the challenge of defending U.S. research from political interference, and ensuring drug development meets real-world health needs

Stanford's Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily on the redistricting push in Texas, recent signals from the Supreme Court about the Voting Rights Act, and the future of voting and redistricting in America

Stanford's Rick Banks on the Doctrine of Disparate Impact and the Surprising Case for Meritocracy

Pam Karlan on the Erosion of Norms at the DOJ

How does the Trump administration's tactics impact elite universities and their freedom of speech?

Analyzing the impact of government actions on foreign students' First Amendment rights

Stanford researchers help bring innovative solutions to high-volume court, enhancing the self-represented litigant experience and its dedication to leading in justice innovation.

Professor Anne Joseph O’Connell discusses the legal and normative implications of Trump's Federal Bureaucracy overhaul

Stanford Law researchers Professor Dan Ho and Mirac Suzgun explore the risks and potential of AI in law

Criminal law expert David Sklansky on DOJ independence, judicial norms, and law firms under attack

President Trump's tariffs are upending world trade and causing unprecedented upheaval in the financial and diplomatic sectors, with close allies questioning the reliability of the U.S. The wild stock and bond markets rollercoaster ride continues, despite the April 9 rollback of most tariffs.

Immigration Law Expert Jennifer Chacón on Trump's Defying Court Orders and Law, College Students, Venezuelans, and Drastic Changes in American Policy

Former IG Glenn Fine joins Pam Karlan to discuss the importance of Inspectors General in government agencies

Professor Allen Weiner joins Pam Karlan for a look at the legal challenges and humanitarian concerns of the Israel/Gaza conflict

Urgent legal questions about privacy protections of the nation’s largest collection of personal data and unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley in Washington

What are the legal implications of the unprecedented mass pardoning of the January 6th rioters? What does it say about American rule of law?

In this episode, Pam Karlan is joined by Stanford Law School Professor David Sklansky, a leading criminal law expert, to discuss his new book and the failures of America’s criminal justice system

In this episode, Pam Karlan is joined by Stanford Law School Professor David Sklansky, a leading criminal law expert, for a wide-ranging discussion of Smith’s report, the evidence against the president-elect, and more.

In this episode, Professor Deborah Sivas joins Pam Karlan for a discussion on California's fire crisis, examining how climate change and urban development are making residents more susceptible to the dangers of fires.

In this episode, Stanford Law Professor Alan O. Sykes joins Pam and Rich for this episode to help make sense of the fascinating world of trade, tariffs, and the global economy.

In this episode, Pam and Rich are joined by Professor Bernie Meyler for a discussion of high-profile pardons like Hunter Biden and Donald Trump’s allies to broader issues of mercy, justice reform, the implications of pardons in polarized politics, their historical roots, and ideas for reform.

In this episode, Pam and Rich are joined by health policy expert Michelle Mello and Neel Guha, a Stanford JD/PhD candidate in computer science, for a discussion on the transformative role of AI in healthcare.

In this episode, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin discusses the role of the state AG and his approach to enforcing the law and promoting justice in New Jersey.

In this episode, Stanford Law's Daniel Ho and computer science/law student Mirac Suzgun discuss the enduring impact of racially restrictive covenants in real estate.

In this episode, Stanford Law’s Debbie Mukamal and Stanford Law student Jacqueline Lewittes discuss the Stanford Criminal Justice Center’s findings from their report “Fatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline and Other Stories Touched by Violence.”

In this episode, Stanford historian Jonathan Gienapp, a leading expert on the founding of the United States, takes a critical look at the Electoral College, presidential immunity, and Constitutional Originalists.

In this episode, election law expert Nate Persily shares why new election laws, novice election administrators, and voter confusion could make for a turbulent 2024 election with hosts Pam Karlan and Rich Ford.

In this episode, Professors Jeffrey Fisher and Easha Anand discuss recent Supreme Court rulings and the potential long-term impacts on American democracy and the rule of law.

In this episode, lecturer Erik Jensen and Stanford Law and Policy Lab students Sarah Manny and Kyrylo Korol expose how attorney-client privilege can undermine the rule of law.

Join Pam and Rich for a discussion with Professor Debbie Sivas on recent Supreme Court decisions affecting environmental and administrative law.

Join Pam and Rich for a discussion with Professor David Sklansky on Judge Cannon's decision and former president Donald Trump's legal battles.

Join Pam and Rich for a discussion with Professor Jennifer Chacón on how immigration policy intersects with law.

Join Pam for a discussion with Professor Michael McConnell on presidential immunity, the Constitution, and former president Trump's cases.

Join Pam and Rich for a discussion with Professors Nora Freeman Engstrom and David Freeman Engstrom on access to justice for all.

Join Pam and Rich for a discussion with Professor Rick Banks about the successes and failures of Brown v. Board of Education.

Join Pam and Rich for a discussion with Professor David Sklansky the many trials of former president Trump.

Join Pam and Rich for a discussion with Professor Daniel Ho and Christie Lawrence, JD ’24, from Stanford's RegLab on governing AI.

Stanford Law Professor Easha Anand, along with Gareth Fowler, JD '24, share impactful stories from their work with the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic.

Dive into the complex history of America's drug war with George Fisher, former Massachusetts Attorney General and acclaimed scholar of criminal law.

From the Dartmouth College men's basketball team's union election to the broader challenges facing university athletics, Pam Karlan along with guest labor law expert and former NLRB chair William Gould IV discuss the complex issues shaping the law and the future of collegiate sports.

When does life begin? Rich and Pam talk to bioethics and law expert Hank Greely about the recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court that has sent shockwaves through the fertility treatment community.

Why does the U.S. have the highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world, with individuals, communities, and taxpayers paying a steep price for lengthy prison terms for even nonviolent offenders?  We hear from Michael Romano, a criminal justice lawyer who founded and directs the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law School, the first law school program of its type in the country focused on securing reduced sentences for incarcerated people deemed to be serving disproportionate sentences.

Pulitzer Prize winning historian Jack Rakove discusses the U.S. Constitution, originalism, charges against former president Donald Trump, and the role of historians in constitutional litigation.

How Business and Government Can Partner to Solve the Freshwater Crisis.

Women and minorities continue to be underrepresented in patent issuing and less often are granted credit for their innovations. We examine why this is, the impacts it has, and what can be done about it.

Less than two years on, we are seeing how overturning Roe v. Wade is playing out as women navigate a divided country with a patchwork of reproductive rights. We hear from co-host Pam Karlan, an expert in reproductive law, about the Texas case and reproductive rights in the US after Roe was overturned.

Explore recent 2nd Amendment Supreme Court cases, the evolution of gun laws, and the implications of increased gun accessibility in the U.S. with John Donohue, an expert on firearms and the law.

From the recent Senate dress code controversy to landmark legal cases, explore the nuanced intersection of the law and fashion, gender identity, and cultural expression. Join Pam Karlan and Rich Ford to delve into the intricate world of dress codes and the law, examining their historical roots and contemporary implications.

Make sure you're following the podcast to get new episodes as they drop. And "hit the bell" in Spotify.

The many indictments against Donald Trump have left many scratching their heads. Here to help make sense of it is former prosecutor and criminal law expert David Alan Sklansky.

Join us this Thursday for the return of Stanford Legal.

Returning to your podcast feed November 9th. Make sure you're following the podcast.

Criminal law expert David A. Sklansky discusses the August 8 search by the FBI of Donald J. Trump’s Florida residence and the legal implications of news reports that the former president took more than 700 pages of classified documents, including some related to the nation’s most covert intelligence operations, to his private club.

Urban law expert Michelle Wilde Anderson discusses her new book, The Fight to Save the Town: Reimagining Discarded America, which looks at how local leaders are confronting government collapse in four blue-collar American communities—and the progress they are making against some of the seemingly intractable problems of poverty.

Pam Karlan, one of the nation’s leading experts on law and voting and the political process, discusses the new conservative-majority Supreme Court—and the potential consequences of its blockbuster term, including the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

While polls of Republican voters still show strong support for former president Trump, some of the most powerful testimony against him during the January 6 Congressional hearings have been by members of his administration and party. In this episode we hear from Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell, a former judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit nominated by President George W. Bush, about a new report he co-authored, Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election, which examined every count of every case of election irregularities brought by Trump’s team in six battleground states—and concluded that “Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.”

What have we learned from the Congressional hearings into the January 6 storming of the Capitol and then-President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election? Join Stanford criminal law expert Professor Robert Weisberg for a discussion of the hearings—what we learned and who might face criminal charges.

Stanford’s John Donohue on gun laws, mass shootings, and what can be done to address them

In an unusual leak from the U.S. Supreme Court, a draft memo shows the Court has decided to overrule Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal throughout the U.S. What does this mean for women seeking abortions in the U.S.? Are other rights, like same-sex marriage under threat? And what does this say about the politicization of the Court? Constitutional law expert Bernadette Meyler joins this episode to discuss these questions and more.

Since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, hundreds of the world’s leading companies, from investment banks to consumer goods, have shuttered their Russian operations. But Law firms have been slower to respond. Join us for a discussion with business law expert Robert Daines who has been leading an effort to expose leading American and British law firms about their status of work for Russian interests.