Political Enemies and the Weaponization of the DOJ
When politics drives prosecutions, what happens to the rule of law? Are we in uncharted waters? Stanford Legal host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with her colleague criminal justice expert Robert Weisberg to unpack the extraordinary federal indictments of former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—with more potentially on the way.Weisberg, the Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, explains how grand jury indictments normally work, why these cases are unusual, and how selective and vindictive prosecution claims might play out when the evidence of political motivation is broadcast via Truth Social missives. Karlan and Weisberg also discuss how Justice Department norms separating the White House from individual charging decisions have been systematically broken—and why these indictments, built on shaky legal ground and thin narratives, could face serious procedural challenges.Links:Robert Weisberg >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Targeted Prosecutions (00:10:00) Understanding Selective vs. Vindictive Prosecution (00:20:00) Comey Indictment and Related Current Events (00:27:00) John Bolton’s Legal Troubles (00:34:00) Potential Challenges for Adam Schiff Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
--------
29:38
--------
29:38
President Trump’s Tariffs and the Separation of Powers at the Supreme Court
In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and assumed the power to levy tariffs, introducing uncertainty into global trading by reneging on previously negotiated agreements. One of the attorneys representing the challengers to the president’s decree in Trump v. VOS is Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a constitutional law expert and former Tenth Circuit judge. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited, is set to have ramifications well beyond trade. As McConnell wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed: “The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952…Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president’s trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution’s architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government’s three branches from becoming all powerful.” McConnell joins Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a discussion about this important case, exploring whether presidents have the authority to tax through tariffs without clear congressional approval, the historical and constitutional roots of "no taxation without representation," and the seismic ramifications of a redefinition of the limits of executive economic power.Links:Michael McConnell >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PagePam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
--------
35:36
--------
35:36
Guns, Money, and Mass Shootings
Frequent mass shootings are a distinctly American problem, with news of another tragic shooting grabbing our attention every few weeks. Yet policy change is stalled.In this episode, we focus on an important reason for the congressional paralysis—the gun lobby. John Donohue, one of the country’s leading experts on the empirical study of law and public policy, and Eric Baldwin, a research fellow at Stanford Law, join us for a discussion about their new research paper, "Another Shooting, Another Contribution From the Gun Lobby." They reveal how both gun rights and gun safety PACs flood competitive districts with donations in the wake of deadly shootings. The result? A high-stakes stalemate that helps preserve the status quo, despite overwhelming public support for measures like universal background checks. With Donohue’s decades of scholarship on crime and policy and Baldwin’s insights into political science and lobbying, the episode offers a timely look at how money and ideology shape one of the country's most polarizing debates and offers an examination of a grim reality: mass shootings have become more frequent, but meaningful reform rarely follows. Against the backdrop of rising political violence, the conversation probes the sometimes-surprising role of campaign donations and interest-group maneuvering in shaping what legislators do—or fail to do—after mass shooting tragedy.Links:John Donohue >>> Stanford Law pageEric Baldwin >>> Stanford Law pageTakuma Iwasaki >>> Stanford Law page“Financial Firepower: School Shootings and the Strategic Contributions of Pro-Gun Pacs” >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Introductions and The Role of Different Gun Lobby Groups(10:01) Impact of Mass Shootings on Public Discourse (18:01) Political Reactions and Misinformation (25:01) Empirical Findings and Study Insights (30:01) Potential Changes in Public and Political Attitudes Towards Gun Violence Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
--------
30:38
--------
30:38
U.S. Risking its Scientific Research Edge?
In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan interviews her Stanford Law School colleague Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette about actions by the Trump administration that Ouellette says are undermining scientific research and jeopardizing America’s longstanding global leadership in medicine and innovation. Drawing on an essay she penned for Just Security, Ouellette explains how decades of bipartisan support for federally funded science—an engine of American innovation since World War II—is now at risk. From canceling grants already approved through peer review, to capping essential “indirect cost” reimbursements, she details how these moves threaten not just labs and universities but also patients, whose clinical trials are being abruptly halted. Ouellette also highlights a second front in her current scholarship: how drug development policy can be better aligned with public health needs. As a member of a National Academies committee, she recently co-authored a report showing that both private investment and federal funding often fail to prioritize diseases causing the greatest suffering. Links:Lisa Larrimore Ouellette >>> Stanford Law pageThe Trump Administration’s Multi-Front Assault on Federal Research Funding >>> Just Security pageStanford Law’s Lisa Ouellette Helps Shape New Report on Drug Development Reform >>> Stanford Lawyer online featureConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Research Funding (05:01) The Competitive Grant Process (15:01) Addressing Disease Burden (20:00) Impacts of Stopped Clinical Trials (25:01) The Role of Federal Investment in Innovation Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
--------
31:09
--------
31:09
Redrawing Democracy
At the urging of President Trump, the Texas legislature has launched a mid‑decade redistricting effort aimed at securing additional Republican seats in Congress. If successful, this effort could have far‑reaching implications for representation and governance—and spur other states to try the same. In this episode of Stanford Legal, two of Stanford Law School’s—and the nation’s—leading election law experts sit down to untangle the legal and political stakes of today’s redistricting wars. In their wide‑ranging discussion, Professors Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily shed light on Texas’s push to add five new Republican‑leaning seats, the Supreme Court’s recent decision to re‑argue Louisiana v. Callais—a move that could reshape how the Voting Rights Act is applied—and the broader battles over race, representation, and the future of redistricting in America.Links:Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Voting Rights and Gerrymandering (05:31)The Legal Landscape of Redistricting(15:01) The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering (25:31) The Evolving Role of the Judiciary (35:01) Future Implications for the Voting Rights Act Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Law touches most aspects of life. Here to help make sense of it is the Stanford Legal podcast, where we look at the cases, questions, conflicts, and legal stories that
affect us all every day.
Stanford Legal launched in 2017 as a radio show on Sirius XM. We’re now a standalone podcast and we’re back after taking some time away, so don’t forget to subscribe or follow this feed. That way you’ll have access to new episodes as soon as they’re available.
We know that the law can be complicated. In past episodes we discussed a broad range of topics from the legal rights of someone in a conservatorship like Britney Spears to the Supreme Court’s abortion decision to how American law firms had to untangle their Russian businesses after the invasion of Ukraine. Past episodes are still available in our back catalog of episodes.
In future shows, we’ll bring on experts to help make sense of things like machine learning and developments in the regulation of artificial intelligence, how the states draw voting maps, and ways that the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling will change college admissions.
Our co-hosts know a bit about these topics because it’s their life’s work.
Pam Karlan studies and teaches what is known as the “law of democracy,”—the law that regulates voting, elections, and the political process. She served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission, an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and (twice) as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. She also co-directs Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, which represents real clients before the highest court in the country, working on important cases including representing Edith Windsor in the landmark marriage equality win and David Riley in a case where the Supreme Court held that the police generally can’t search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested unless they first get a warrant. She has argued before the Court nine times.
And Rich Ford’s teaching and writing looks at the relationship between law and equality, cities and urban development, popular culture and everyday life. He teaches local government law, employment discrimination, and the often-misunderstood critical race theory. He studied with and advised governments around the world on questions of equality law, lectured at places like the Sorbonne in Paris on the relationship of law and popular culture, served as a commissioner for the San Francisco Housing Commission, and worked with cities on how to manage neighborhood change and volatile real estate markets. He writes about law and popular culture for lawyers, academics, and popular audiences. His latest book is Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History, a legal history of the rules and laws that influence what we wear.
The law is personal for all of us—and pivotal. The landmark civil rights laws of the 1960s have made discrimination illegal but the consequences of the Jim Crow laws imposed after the civil war are still with us, reflected in racially segregated schools and neighborhoods and racial imbalances in our prisons and conflict between minority communities and police. Unequal gender roles and stereotypes still keep women from achieving equality in professional status and income. Laws barring gay people from marrying meant that millions lived lives of secrecy and shame. New technologies present new legal questions: should AI decide who gets hired or how long convicted criminals go to prison? What can we do about social media’s influence on our elections? Can Chat GPT get copyright in a novel?
Law matters. We hope you’ll listen to new episodes that will drop on Thursdays every two weeks.
To learn more, go to https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-legal-podcast/.
South Africa