As states and the federal government impose vaccine mandates to curb the spread of COVID-19, the constitutionality of those mandates has come into question, particularly with regard to religious freedom. Constitutional challenges to state and federal vaccine mandates have found varying success before the Supreme Court. Host Reagan Kapp and Professor Nathan Chapman (U. of Georgia School of Law) discuss the interplay between the First Amendment, freedom of religion, and vaccine mandates.

When Are Vaccine Mandates Constitutional?

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the "right of the people peaceably to assemble." The recent prevalence of protest movements, alongside a global pandemic, has influenced the interpretation of this right. Host Kyra Cooper speaks with Professor John Inazu (WashU School of Law) about the right to assemble and its interaction with modern events. Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the "right of the people peaceably to assemble." The recent prevalence of protest movements, alongside a global pandemic, has influenced the interpretation of this right. Host Kyra Cooper speaks with Professor John Inazu (WashU School of Law) about the right to assemble and its interaction with modern events. Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

Protests, a Pandemic, and the Right to Assemble

In 2020, YouTube influencer Myka Stauffer received widespread criticism when she revealed her family had given away her adopted son to another family. Host Kyra Cooper speaks with Professor Cynthia Hawkins (Stetson U. College of Law) about the unregulated custody transfer of adoptees and the legal regime surrounding the adoption process.Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

In 2020, YouTube influencer Myka Stauffer received widespread criticism when she revealed her family had given away her adopted son to another family. Host Kyra Cooper speaks with Professor Cynthia Hawkins (Stetson U. College of Law) about the unregulated custody transfer of adoptees and the legal regime surrounding the adoption process. Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

The Abandonment of Adoptees

In a new University of Chicago Law School seminar, Professor Emily Buss (U. Chicago Law) and ten law students co-taught incarcerated high school students about the constitutional rights of minors. Host Andrew Zeller, Professor Buss, and Heidi Mueller, director of the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, discuss the rewarding and challenging aspects of the course.Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

In a new University of Chicago Law School seminar, Professor Emily Buss (U. Chicago Law) and ten law students co-taught incarcerated high school students about the constitutional rights of minors. Host Andrew Zeller, Professor Buss, and Heidi Mueller, director of the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, discuss the rewarding and challenging aspects of the course. Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

Teaching Constitutional Law

Appointed as Cook County public defender in March 2021, Sharone Mitchell, Jr. took office with a vision to serve as "an engine for progressive systems change." Host Dylan Platt speaks with Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell, Jr. and Professor Judith Miller (U. Chicago Law) on the evolving role of public defenders at the state and federal level. Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

Appointed as Cook County public defender in March 2021, Sharone Mitchell, Jr. took office with a vision to serve as "an engine for progressive systems change." Host Dylan Platt speaks with Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell, Jr. and Professor Judith Miller (U. Chicago Law) on the evolving role of public defenders at the state and federal level. Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

The Role of the Public Defender

A mere six votes determined the outcome of the 2020 election in Iowa's 2nd congressional district, revealing the delicate balance of power between elections shared by states and the federal government. For the inaugural episode of season five, hosts Kyra Cooper and Rachel Smith discuss the role of the federal government in state-run elections with Professors Derek Muller (University of Iowa Law) and Franita Tolson (USC Gould Law). Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

A mere six votes determined the outcome of the 2020 election in Iowa's 2nd congressional district, revealing the delicate balance of power between elections shared by states and the federal government. For the inaugural episode of season five, hosts Kyra Cooper and Rachel Smith discuss the role of the federal government in state-run elections with Professors Derek Muller (University of Iowa Law) and Franita Tolson (USC Gould Law). Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

Federalism and Elections

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.—its first student-speech case in more than a decade.  In this second part of a special Briefly season finale, Adam Hassanein and Professor Emily Buss (U. Chicago Law) discuss Mahanoy, how new technology has changed the speech landscape, and how the Supreme Court could transform students' right to speak their minds.Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.—its first student-speech case in more than a decade. In this second part of a special Briefly season finale, Adam Hassanein and Professor Emily Buss (U. Chicago Law) discuss Mahanoy, how new technology has changed the speech landscape, and how the Supreme Court could transform students' right to speak their minds. Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

Stories of Student Speech (Part 2)

The Supreme Court hears argument today in its first student-speech case in more than a decade.  In this first part of a special Briefly season finale, Adam Hassanein digs deep with plaintiffs and attorneys from the Court's legendary speech cases, who tell their student-speech stories.  Guests: John &amp; Mary Beth Tinker (from Tinker v. Des Moines); Matthew Fraser (from Bethel v. Fraser); Cathy Kuhlmeier (from Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier); and attorney Douglas Mertz (from Morse v. Frederick).

Stories of Student Speech (Part 1)

"Not in my backyard" has kept the dream of an affordable home beyond the reach of many Americans.  Lee Anne Fennell (U. Chicago Law) joins host Taiyee Chien to explain how and why zoning rules constrict affordable housing—and which reforms could change everything.Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

"Not in my backyard" has kept the dream of an affordable home beyond the reach of many Americans. Lee Anne Fennell (U. Chicago Law) joins host Taiyee Chien to explain how and why zoning rules constrict affordable housing—and which reforms could change everything. Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

NIMBYism and the Politics of Zoning

Huge numbers of civil cases feature at least one party who lacks legal representation.  Host Adam Hassanein and Professor Anna Carpenter (Utah Law) discuss the ins and outs of the access-to-justice problem—and solutions sounding in law, policy, and human decency.

Access to Justice

This is "Briefly," a podcast produced by The University of Chicago Law Review. Join us as we discuss current cases, contemporary controversies, and the forefront of legal scholarship.

Excellent analysis

"Briefly" by The University of Chicago Law Review

Matt Levine of Money Stuff fame joins Briefly to discuss insider trading, stock buybacks, the Fed's extraordinary market interventions, and how everything is securities fraud. Guest: Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine (@matt_levine).Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

Matt Levine of Money Stuff fame joins Briefly to discuss insider trading, stock buybacks, the Fed's extraordinary market interventions, and how everything is securities fraud. Guest: Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine (@matt_levine). Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

COVID in the Markets

To kick off our fourth season, we dig deep into COVID-19's effect on the courts. Guests: Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judge Michael Scudder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

To kick off our fourth season, we dig deep into COVID-19's effect on the courts. Guests: Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judge Michael Scudder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Twitter @uchilrev | <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu</a> | Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

COVID in the Courts

Today on Briefly we explore the controversial doctrine of "qualified immunity," a constitutional law doctrine that prevents executive officials like police from being brought into court for alleged constitutional violations, including acts of violence. Where does the immunity come from? Why does it exist? Is it to protect government officers from their deeds? Or is it to allow courts to expand civil rights without creating numerous court cases?We spoke to three scholars, Harvard’s Richard Fallon, the editor of Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System; William Baude, professor at the University of Chicago Law School and author of “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” in the California Law Review; and Joanna Schwartz, a professor at UCLA law whose empirical studies of qualified immunity in practice have been published in the Yale Law Journal and Notre Dame Law Review.This episode was produced by David Sandefer. Music from bensound.com

Today on Briefly we explore the controversial doctrine of "qualified immunity," a constitutional law doctrine that prevents executive officials like police from being brought into court for alleged constitutional violations, including acts of violence. Where does the immunity come from? Why does it exist? Is it to protect government officers from their deeds? Or is it to allow courts to expand civil rights without creating numerous court cases? We spoke to three scholars, Harvard’s Richard Fallon, the editor of Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System; William Baude, professor at the University of Chicago Law School and author of “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” in the California Law Review; and Joanna Schwartz, a professor at UCLA law whose empirical studies of qualified immunity in practice have been published in the Yale Law Journal and Notre Dame Law Review. This episode was produced by David Sandefer. Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

2.4 - Qualified Immunity

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing who corporations serve. There has been a widespread belief for several decades that corporations exist to serve the interests of their shareholders. But that idea has come under increasing pressure by those who believe corporations should serve the interests of all of their stakeholders, including customers, employees, and the communities in which they operate . We spoke with Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business to hear two sides of the debate on this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing who corporations serve. There has been a widespread belief for several decades that corporations exist to serve the interests of their shareholders. But that idea has come under increasing pressure by those who believe corporations should serve the interests of all of their stakeholders, including customers, employees, and the communities in which they operate . We spoke with Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business to hear two sides of the debate on this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

Who Do Corporations Serve?

Today, Briefly dives into the late Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, a case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms unrelated to military service. The case has attracted attention from scholars and lawyers for the method of originalism Justice Scalia used in the decision. We’ve talked to Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato institute and lead lawyer for the plaintiff in Heller, Saul Cornell, Chair in American History at Fordham University, Nelson Lund, Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, and Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant of the University of Chicago. Professors LaCroix and Merchant are working on a project called “Historical Semantics and Legal Interpretation,” which aims to give judges and legal scholars the tools to understand how language was used in the past.This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Sef Schaffel, David Sandefer, Megan Coggeshall, Jeremy Rozansky, and Chris Walling. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to Noel Ottman, and the V85 Online Group.

Today, Briefly dives into the late Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, a case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms unrelated to military service. The case has attracted attention from scholars and lawyers for the method of originalism Justice Scalia used in the decision. We’ve talked to Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato institute and lead lawyer for the plaintiff in Heller, Saul Cornell, Chair in American History at Fordham University, Nelson Lund, Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, and Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant of the University of Chicago. Professors LaCroix and Merchant are working on a project called “Historical Semantics and Legal Interpretation,” which aims to give judges and legal scholars the tools to understand how language was used in the past. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Sef Schaffel, David Sandefer, Megan Coggeshall, Jeremy Rozansky, and Chris Walling. Music from <a href="http://www.bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.bensound.com</a>. Special thanks to Noel Ottman, and the V85 Online Group.

1.9 - Originalism and the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v Heller

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing when courts should overturn precedent. We're joined by two legal scholars who have studied this question: Professor William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Richard Re of UCLA School of Law. We discuss the value of stare decisis, competing theories of precedent, and the current Supreme Court justices' views on when precedent should be followed. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing when courts should overturn precedent. We're joined by two legal scholars who have studied this question: Professor William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Richard Re of UCLA School of Law. We discuss the value of stare decisis, competing theories of precedent, and the current Supreme Court justices' views on when precedent should be followed. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

When Should Courts Overturn Precedent?

In the wake of hate group rallies and protests of controversial speakers on college campuses, how far does the right to free speech extend? What are its limits? Should the federal government and universities be empowered to place further restrictions on speech, or would further curtailments do more harm than good? Join us as we discuss with Professor Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and Professor Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

In the wake of hate group rallies and protests of controversial speakers on college campuses, how far does the right to free speech extend? What are its limits? Should the federal government and universities be empowered to place further restrictions on speech, or would further curtailments do more harm than good? Join us as we discuss with Professor Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and Professor Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from <a href="http://www.bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.bensound.com</a>. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

1.3 — The Costs of Free Speech: Hate Speech, College Campuses, and the Marketplace of Ideas

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we are discussing two cases pending before the Supreme Court, which will determine whether roughly half of the land in Oklahoma is actually an Indian Reservation . We're joined by Elizabeth Reese, a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law &amp; Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we are discussing two cases pending before the Supreme Court, which will determine whether roughly half of the land in Oklahoma is actually an Indian Reservation . We're joined by Elizabeth Reese, a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law &amp; Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

Is Half of Oklahoma Tribal Land?

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing some legal concerns related to the collection and use, or misuse, of personal data. Today’s podcast features interviews with Professor Lior Strahilevitz and Professor Omri Ben-Shahar, from the University of Chicago Law School.Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/This episode was produced by Yosef Schaffel. Music from bensound.com

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing some legal concerns related to the collection and use, or misuse, of personal data. Today’s podcast features interviews with Professor Lior Strahilevitz and Professor Omri Ben-Shahar, from the University of Chicago Law School. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> This episode was produced by Yosef Schaffel. Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

Solving the Privacy Paradox

Welcome to a new season of Briefly! On today's show, we discuss Amazon's rapid rise and the pressure the internet retailer is putting on traditional antitrust law.Our guests include Geoffrey Manne of the International Center for Law and Economics and Lina Khan of the Open Market Institute.This episode was produced by Sef Schaffel. Music form bensound.com

Welcome to a new season of Briefly! On today's show, we discuss Amazon's rapid rise and the pressure the internet retailer is putting on traditional antitrust law. Our guests include Geoffrey Manne of the International Center for Law and Economics and Lina Khan of the Open Market Institute. This episode was produced by Sef Schaffel. Music form <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

2.1 - Amazon and Antitrust

Today, we’re discussing epistemic injustice and the law. Epistemic injustice occurs when an individual is wrongfully undermined in his or her role as a knower. One aspect of epistemic injustice involves the ways in which biased assessments of a speaker’s credibility can undermine that person’s ability to relay his or her experiences. This is particularly salient in the context of trials since a juror’s inaccurate assessment of witness credibility based on factors such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status can thwart the truth-seeking function of trials.Today’s podcast features interviews with Miranda Fricker, professor of philosophy at CUNY Graduate Center in New York and author of a book called Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, and Michael Sullivan, professor of philosophy at Emory University.This episode was produced by David Sandefer. Special thanks to Taylor Coles for suggesting this topic. Music from bensound.com

Today, we’re discussing epistemic injustice and the law. Epistemic injustice occurs when an individual is wrongfully undermined in his or her role as a knower. One aspect of epistemic injustice involves the ways in which biased assessments of a speaker’s credibility can undermine that person’s ability to relay his or her experiences. This is particularly salient in the context of trials since a juror’s inaccurate assessment of witness credibility based on factors such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status can thwart the truth-seeking function of trials. Today’s podcast features interviews with Miranda Fricker, professor of philosophy at CUNY Graduate Center in New York and author of a book called Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, and Michael Sullivan, professor of philosophy at Emory University. This episode was produced by David Sandefer. Special thanks to Taylor Coles for suggesting this topic. Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>

1.11 - Epistemic Injustice

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we're discussing the global trend of democratic backsliding with Professor Aziz Huq and Professor Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago Law School. Professors Ginsburg and Huq have recently written the book, "How to Save a Constitutional Democracy," on that subject. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we're discussing the global trend of democratic backsliding with Professor Aziz Huq and Professor Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago Law School. Professors Ginsburg and Huq have recently written the book, "How to Save a Constitutional Democracy," on that subject. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

How to Save a Constitutional Democracy

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing an article by Samuel Moyn, Professor at Yale Law School, called "Law Schools Are Bad for Democracy" and a response to that article by Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs. We spoke to Professor Moyn and Mr. Levin about their views on this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing an article by Samuel Moyn, Professor at Yale Law School, called "Law Schools Are Bad for Democracy" and a response to that article by Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs. We spoke to Professor Moyn and Mr. Levin about their views on this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

Are Law Schools Bad for Democracy?

Fred Yarger

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission is one of the most high-profile cases before the Supreme Court this term. We interviewed Colorado Solicitor General Fred Yarger, who represented Colorado during oral argument. The first part of the interview focuses on Masterpiece itself.  In 2012, a gay couple asked a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips to make them a customized wedding cake. Phillips refused on the grounds that baking the cake would violate his religious objections to gay marriage, and the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission determined that Phillips had violated a provision of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The main question presented in Masterpiece is whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court on December 5, 2017 and Court observers expect a decision in June.The second part of the interview focuses on Mr. Yarger’s work in the Solicitor General’s office and his career after law school. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Eric Petry, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission is one of the most high-profile cases before the Supreme Court this term. We interviewed Colorado Solicitor General Fred Yarger, who represented Colorado during oral argument. The first part of the interview focuses on Masterpiece itself. In 2012, a gay couple asked a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips to make them a customized wedding cake. Phillips refused on the grounds that baking the cake would violate his religious objections to gay marriage, and the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission determined that Phillips had violated a provision of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The main question presented in Masterpiece is whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court on December 5, 2017 and Court observers expect a decision in June. The second part of the interview focuses on Mr. Yarger’s work in the Solicitor General’s office and his career after law school. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Eric Petry, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from <a href="http://www.bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.bensound.com</a>. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

1.7 - Masterpiece Cakeshop: Interview with Colorado Solicitor General Fred Yarger

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re covering Supreme Court advocacy and the separate sovereigns doctrine with Michael Scodro, partner at Mayer Brown. We discuss Mr. Scodro's experiences arguing before the Supreme Court and the Court's recent Gamble decision, which analyzed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant from prosecution by both the state and federal governments. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re covering Supreme Court advocacy and the separate sovereigns doctrine with Michael Scodro, partner at Mayer Brown. We discuss Mr. Scodro's experiences arguing before the Supreme Court and the Court's recent Gamble decision, which analyzed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant from prosecution by both the state and federal governments. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

Supreme Court Advocacy and the Separate Sovereigns Doctrine

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we're discussing law enforcement's use of genealogy databases to solve cold cases and related Fourth Amendment implications. We spoke to Natalie Ram, Assistant Professor at the University of Baltimore Law School, and Jason Kreag, Associate Professor at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, to help us make sense of this issue.Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we're discussing law enforcement's use of genealogy databases to solve cold cases and related Fourth Amendment implications. We spoke to Natalie Ram, Assistant Professor at the University of Baltimore Law School, and Jason Kreag, Associate Professor at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, to help us make sense of this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

Genealogy Databases and the Fourth Amendment

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing suing state sponsors of terrorism with Stuart Newberger, a partner at Crowell Moring. This is the last episode of our third season, and we at the University of Chicago Law Review want to thank you all for tuning in, as we explored some fascinating legal questions this year. We look forward to meeting again for Season 4!Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing suing state sponsors of terrorism with Stuart Newberger, a partner at Crowell Moring. This is the last episode of our third season, and we at the University of Chicago Law Review want to thank you all for tuning in, as we explored some fascinating legal questions this year. We look forward to meeting again for Season 4! Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at <a href="http://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/</a> Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a>.

Suing State Sponsors of Terrorism

This is Part One of our three-part series discussing Title IX, and sexual misconduct proceedings on university campuses. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently attracted controversy by rescinding the Obama administration’s guidance for how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases on their campuses. How do these proceedings function? What did the Obama administration require? Does the system work or is there a superior alternative? We discuss these questions and more with Professor Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Saul Levmore, William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University School of Communication, and Professor Nancy Chi Cantalupo, Assistant Professor of Law at Barry University.This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out Parts Two and Three.

This is Part One of our three-part series discussing Title IX, and sexual misconduct proceedings on university campuses. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently attracted controversy by rescinding the Obama administration’s guidance for how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases on their campuses. How do these proceedings function? What did the Obama administration require? Does the system work or is there a superior alternative? We discuss these questions and more with Professor Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Saul Levmore, William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University School of Communication, and Professor Nancy Chi Cantalupo, Assistant Professor of Law at Barry University. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from <a href="http://www.bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.bensound.com</a>. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out Parts Two and Three.

1.4 - Sexual Misconduct in Higher Education: Title IX and Campus Proceedings (Part One)

Our subject today is bureaucratic resistance. Bureaucratic resistance occurs when civil servants disobey the orders of elected officials and political appointees. Some kind of bureaucratic shirking is inevitable in modern government, but bureaucratic resistance has been uniquely public during the first two years of the Trump administration. Today we're joined today by Jennifer Nou, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and Chris Walker, a Professor of Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.This episode was produced by David Sandefer and Chris Walling. Music from bensound.comFor more on the subject from Professor Nou, check out http://yalejreg.com/nc/bureaucratic-resistance-from-below-by-jennifer-nou/

Our subject today is bureaucratic resistance. Bureaucratic resistance occurs when civil servants disobey the orders of elected officials and political appointees. Some kind of bureaucratic shirking is inevitable in modern government, but bureaucratic resistance has been uniquely public during the first two years of the Trump administration. Today we're joined today by Jennifer Nou, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and Chris Walker, a Professor of Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. This episode was produced by David Sandefer and Chris Walling. Music from <a href="http://bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bensound.com</a> For more on the subject from Professor Nou, check out <a href="http://yalejreg.com/nc/bureaucratic-resistance-from-below-by-jennifer-nou/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://yalejreg.com/nc/bureaucratic-resistance-from-below-by-jennifer-nou/</a>

Bureaucratic Resistance

This is Part Two of our three-part series discussing Title IX, and sexual misconduct proceedings on university campuses. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently attracted controversy by rescinding the Obama administration’s guidance for how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases on their campuses. We interviewed four professors separately to consider the evidence standard in college proceedings. Many campus proceedings use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Is this the right standard? What are its benefits? What are its drawbacks?We discuss these questions with Professor Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Katherine K. Baker, Distinguished Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University School of Communication, and Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, and Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago.This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out Parts One and Three.

This is Part Two of our three-part series discussing Title IX, and sexual misconduct proceedings on university campuses. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently attracted controversy by rescinding the Obama administration’s guidance for how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases on their campuses. We interviewed four professors separately to consider the evidence standard in college proceedings. Many campus proceedings use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Is this the right standard? What are its benefits? What are its drawbacks? We discuss these questions with Professor Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Katherine K. Baker, Distinguished Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University School of Communication, and Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, and Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from <a href="http://www.bensound.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.bensound.com</a>. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out Parts One and Three.

1.5 - Sexual Misconduct in Higher Education: What is the Proper Standard of Proof? (Part Two)

The best episodes for anyone looking to learn more about topics such as happiness, fulfillment, depression and psychology/mental health in general. With interviews with industry experts, personal stories of individuals, this topic has lessons applicable to everyone. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Mental Health, Emotions & Thoughts

The best podcast episodes on parenting. Interviewing experts and talking through common issues surrounding parenting. This topic is filled with important lessons and insights for anyone listening. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!