Stanford Legal

Former Department of Justice pardon attorney Liz Oyer describes being pulled out of a meeting, told to pack up her belongings, and walked out by security the same day. Her offense, she said, was refusing to recommend that the attorney general restore gun rights to a politically connected celebrity without the information she believed was necessary to make that judgment safely. “Once you compromise your integrity, you cannot get it back,” she said.

That moment sets the tone for a candid conversation about what it means to serve inside the Department of Justice, and what happens when career lawyers believe the institution they devoted themselves to has changed. Moderated by Stanford Law professor Pam Karlan, this episode brings together Oyer, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Rosen, and former DOJ civil rights lawyer Stacey Young for a discussion of public service, prosecutorial independence, clemency, civil rights, professional ethics, and the difficult questions of when to stay, when to leave, and when to speak out.

The panel, recorded at a live law school event and presented by the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession and the Neukom Center for the Rule of Law, offers a close look at the professional obligations of government lawyers from people who spent years doing the work: Rosen supervising more than 1,000 prosecutions stemming from January 6; Oyer overseeing the federal pardon process and thousands of clemency petitions; and Young working in the Civil Rights Division while also founding the DOJ Gender Equality Network. Karlan, herself a former DOJ official, draws out the deeper questions behind their stories.

Links:

Former DOJ Lawyers Discuss Duty, Integrity, and Public Service During Stanford Law Panel >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:00) Introductions and what drew each panelist to DOJ

(00:08:24) Loyalty inside the institution

(00:11:19) January 6th pardons: impact on prosecutors and lack of vetting

(00:32:04) Liz Oyer's firing over the Mel Gibson gun-rights recommendation

(00:43:23) The "stay or go" dilemma and the bifurcated job market

(00:47:15) Rebuilding DOJ: norms vs. enforceable laws and the communications problem

[00:57:00) Student Q&A: red lines, accountability, and the Epstein files

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, two of the nation’s leading election law scholars dissect a ruling that could soon reverberate through elections at every level of government.

Nathaniel Persily joins Pam Karlan for a discussion about the Callais decision—what it means for racial representation, partisan gerrymandering, and anti-discrimination law. Karlan and Persily are longtime collaborators, including as co-authors of The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. Their conversation traces the Voting Rights Act’s evolution from the landmark Thornburg v. Gingles decision to the Court’s latest narrowing of Section 2, and examines how the ruling could affect congressional maps in 2026, minority representation at every level of government, and the broader future of disparate impact protections. As Persily explains, the Court has moved from treating partisan gerrymandering as constitutionally suspect to a place where it is now “a legitimate state practice, a legitimate interest that’s almost being celebrated.”

 

Links:

Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law School Page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

[00:00:30] Introduction: The Voting Rights Act Under Siege

[00:02:18] Section 2's Original Promise: Results Over Intent

[00:11:06] Louisiana v. Cali: Dismantling the Gingles Framework

[00:23:17] From Unconstitutional to Celebrated: The Partisan Gerrymandering Evolution

[00:28:14] Future Implications: Elections and Civil Rights

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sophia Lin Lakin, JD ’11 (MS ’04, BA ’02), director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, challenges the stated premises behind many current voting restrictions, including claims about widespread non-citizen voting. “If we’re worried about the integrity of our elections,” she tells Stanford Law professor and host Pam Karlan, “we should be worried about making sure that more people are participating in our elections and not chasing a fantasy.”

That concern—how long-standing efforts to restrict voting access can make it harder for eligible voters to participate—runs through the episode, which was recorded shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which had created a second majority-Black district, holding that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision could make it harder to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge maps that dilute minority voting strength.

Lakin and Karlan discuss what is at stake when access to the ballot becomes harder and the rules for translating votes into political power begin to shift. Their conversation focuses on proof-of-citizenship requirements, mail ballots, voter roll purges, and redistricting battles, offering a timely look at the legal fights shaping who can vote, whose ballots count, and whether communities can elect representatives of their choice.

 

Links:

Sophia Lin Lakin >>> ACLU page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:00) The Three Buckets of Voting Rights 

(00:02:35) Voter Roll Surveillance 

(00:06:17) The Non-Citizen Voting Myth and the Dangers of Faulty Databases 

(00:10:23) Citizenship Documentation Requirements 

(00:16:19) Mail Voting Rules and the Materiality Provision 

(00:21:00) Section Two of the Voting Rights Act and Redistricting Battles 

(00:28:51) Race, Politics, and the Future of Fair Maps 

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that changed that understanding. According to the President's executive order, going forward, the only people who will be U.S. citizens at birth are people who are born in the United States to parents who are citizens, at least one of whom is a citizen, or at least one of the parents is a legal permanent resident of the United States. And what does all of this mean for Native Americans? 

In this episode, Greg Ablavsky, a Stanford Law professor and scholar of federal Indian law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss President Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship--a case now at the Supreme Court.

The discussion centers on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Ablavsky explains why federal Indian law has become part of that debate. He traces the distinctive legal status of Native nations within the United States, the historical exception for members of tribal nations, and the way that history appears in seminal cases such as Elk v. Wilkins.  The conversation also looks at the relationship between Elk and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. Along the way, Karlan and Ablavsky break down why history matters to the government’s current effort to argue for new limits on birthright citizenship--and more.

Links:

Gregory Ablavsky >>> Stanford Law page

Federal Ground: Governing Property and Violence in the First U.S. Territories >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:00) Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth?

(00:03:54) The Origins of the 14th Amendment 

(00:05:58) "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof"

(00:11:42) Citizenship at the Supreme Court

(00:17:03) Native Americans, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, and the Presidency

(00:18:49) The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA (Barbara) — Analogies, Originalism, and the Native American

(00:28:31) Practical Chaos, Hard Cases and What the Court Should Do

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Richard Thompson Ford talks taxes with Darien Shanske, JD '06, a UC Davis law professor and visiting professor at Stanford Law, who helped draft California’s proposed Billionaire Tax Act, which supporters hope to place on the November 2026 ballot. Shanske explains why he believes critics have often attacked a distorted version of the proposal, not the measure itself: a one-time 5% tax on net worth above $1 billion, payable over five years, aimed at helping California respond to widening wealth inequality and cuts to the social safety net. The conversation explores the legal design of the measure, the politics surrounding it, and the larger questions it raises about tax fairness, concentrated wealth, and what tools states should have when public needs are acute.

 

Links:

Darien Shanske >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:32) Origins of the Billionaire Tax

(00:05:28) Why a Wealth Tax? 

(00:12:07) Will Billionaires Flee? 

(00:19:06) Legal Challenges, Residency, and Retroactivity 

(00:26:48) The National Picture 

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.