?????????????????????WEB??????????Podcast(???????): Recent Episodes
"Briefly" by The Uni
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.
Today on Briefly we’re discussing the increasingly important intersection of the #MeToo movement and corporate law. What do corporations do in response to sexual assault allegations? Do corporate actions downplay the victim's struggle, or do they play an important role in shaping society when politics doesn't work? We spoke to two scholars, Daniel Hemel, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Dorothy Lund, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. Together, Hemel and Lund wrote a Coase-Sandor Working Paper titled “Sexual Harassment and Corporate Law.” The paper is available here: https://columbialawreview.org/content/sexual-harassment-and-corporate-law/ This episode was produced by David Sandefer. Follow us on Twitter @uchilrev. Check out our blog at lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu Music from bensound.com
Traditional nuisance ordinances are environmental regulations that prohibit things like piling trash in a yard or making loud noises at night. But some ordinances prohibit frequent 911 calls and allow the city to fine the property owner when 911 is called too many times to a certain property. These laws have dire consequences for victims of domestic violence, and they can lead to these victims becoming homeless.
For today’s episode, we talked separately with Professor Vicki Been, the Boxer Family Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and the former Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development for the City of New York; Gretchen Arnold, Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Saint Louis University; and Professor Joseph Mead from the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and his graduate research assistant Marissa Pappis.
This episode was produced by Yosef Schaffel. 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 bensound.com
This week on Briefly we continue our discussion of the Opioid Crisis. This show is part two of a two-part episode. We discuss opioid litigation and its role in the overall policy response to the Crisis. Our guests this episode are Keith Humphreys, Esther Ting Memorial Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, and Abbe Gluck, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy. This episode was produced by David Sandefer and Yosef Schaffel. Music from bensound.com
This week on Briefly we discuss the ways the law can and does address the Opioid Crisis. The Crisis has claimed myriad lives and devastated communities and families across America. This show will be part of a two-part episode. In Part I we discuss local government responses to the crisis and focus on drug induced homicide charges. Our guests this episode are Keith Humphreys, Esther Ting Memorial Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, and Lindsay LaSalle, Director of Public Health Law and Policy with the Drug Policy Alliance. This episode was produced by David Sandefer and Yosef Schaffel. Music from 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 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 bensound.com
Today, we’ll discuss the corporate disclosures required by the SEC and an alternative method for handing these disclosures—the creation of a market to buy and sell corporate data. This episode features M. Todd Henderson, the Michael J. Marcus professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and Donald Langevoort, the Thomas Aquinas Reynolds Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Henderson and his coauthor, Kevin S. Haeberl, associate professor of law at William and Mary Law School, explore this issue further in their paper Making a Market for Corporate Disclosure. The paper is available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814125.
This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Sef Schaffel, David Sandefer, Thomas Molloy, and Chris Walling. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to Tom Garvey 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 Allison 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.
For today’s episode, we interviewed Ms. Valerie Jarrett, a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. Most recently, Jarrett was a Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. During her time at the White House, she oversaw the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs and chaired the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Jarrett has a background in both the public and private sectors. She served as Chairman of the Chicago Transit Board, Commissioner of Planning and Development, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. She is currently a board member of Ariel Capital Management Holdings, Inc., Lyft, and 2U, Inc.
Jarrett spoke with us about her professional experience in law and public service, about her views on the #MeToo movement and gender equality in the workplace, and about the current projects she is working on at Chicago.
We interviewed Colorado Solicitor General Fred Yarger, who represented Colorado in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is currently before the Supreme Court.
The first part of the interview focuses on the Masterpiece case. The main question presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop 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. 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. Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court on December 5, 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.
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!
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 Three of our three-part series on Title IX sexual misconduct proceedings. There is a debate across college campuses about how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases. In Part One, we looked at the proceedings generally, and in Part Two we specifically looked at the standard of evidence: what has to be proved before a person can be sanctioned. In Part Three, we’re looking at other policies utilized in Title IX proceedings: whether students should be entitled to a support person, what level of cross examination should be allowed, and what should be the definition of sexual misconduct?
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 Two.
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.
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!
The City of Chicago, in addition to other state and local governments, sued the Federal Government after Attorney General Jeff Sessions attempted to withhold certain federal funds from "sanctuary cities." Sessions' move is intended to prevent these cities from stymieing federal immigration enforcement. Chicago and others claim withholding federal funds violates the Constitution and threatens police anti-crime efforts. Join us as we discuss the nature of these issues with Professor Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, and Professor John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law.
This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Tom Garvey, Tom Molloy, and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!
On October 15th, 2017, Colin Kaepernick filed a non-injury grievance with the NFL, alleging that the NFL teams have colluded to blackball him from the League because of his recent political protests. What is the substance of Kaepernick's grievance claim, how likely is it to succeed, and what other legal avenues might be available to him? Join us as we examine these issues with Professor Randall Schmidt from the University of Chicago Law School, and Professor Michael Leroy from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
This is Briefly, a podcast produced by the University of Chicago Law Review. This episode has been produced by Grace Bridwell, Tom Molloy, and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Tom Garvey, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. This is our very first episode, so we’d like to further thank last year’s Online Group and Managing Board for their support. Thanks for listening!