In this episode, Julian kicks off a new series on Law and Political Economy (LPE) by examining foundational assumptions of how we see the law. Using David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” as a frame to examine legal consciousness, Julian walks through what LPE scholars call the "Twentieth-Century Synthesis," and how prevailing legal thought has created a split between "market law" and "rights law." He traces how Law and Economics constructed legal common sense, and what that means for law students and lawyers in the critical examination of their field. If you're interested in this week topic, please check out these resources to learn more: David Singh Grewal, Amy Kapczynski, and Jedidiah Britton-Purdy, Toward a Manifesto (2017) Samuel Aber, Neoliberalism: An LPE Reading List and Introduction, LPE Project (Aug. 10, 2020) Samuel Aber, Legal Realism: An LPE Reading List and Introduction, LPE Project (Aug. 9, 2020) Kendall Thomas, Law After Neoliberalism (course syllabus, Columbia Law School), LPE Project Syllabi (Jan. 23, 2025) Amy Kapczynski, Law & Political Economy (course syllabus), LPE Project Syllabi (Sept. 27, 2022) Luke Norris, Law & Political Economy (course syllabus, Univ. of Richmond School of Law, Fall 2023)

In this episode, Associate Editor Delaney Ferrer examines what happens when natural disasters destroy, not just a city, but the legal systems meant to protect its people. Focusing on post-Katrina New Orleans, Delaney explores how failures in planning, infrastructure, and civil rights protections led to the collapse of the justice system--and what lessons we can take for a future that is threatened by climate change and recurring disasters. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources to learn more: ACLU “Abandoned and Abused: Complete Report” https://www.unitedcajunnavy.org/ Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts National Geographic’s Hurricane Katrina: Race Against Time https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/hurricane-katrina-disaster-relief-funding

In this week's episode, associate editor Rachel Urbash begins with a brief discussion of theories underlying incarceration in the US. Next, this episode tracks the evolution of the test created by the Supreme Court in 1987 to assess the validity of prison regulations violating the constitutional rights of inmates. Starting with Turner v. Safley, the episode discusses the creation of the four-factor test. After discussing Turner, this episode discusses Beard v. Banks, a 2006 Supreme Court First Amendment case that called the efficacy of the Turner analysis into question in considering the validity of prison regulations that deprived inmates of virtually all First Amendment rights to encourage rehabilitation. This episode discusses the critiques of the Court's analysis in Beard, and the impact of the decision on circuit courts’ analyses of First Amendment free speech challenges to prison regulations. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources to learn more: Beard v. Banks | 548 U.S. 521 (2006) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Prisoners' Rights Archives | The Free Speech Center beard_v_banks_deprivation_as_rehabilitation.pdf

In this episode, associate editor Addison Fouts dives into the world of “dupes” and their legality. Dupes are “inspired by” designs and have been highly promoted on social media in recent years. Joined by Attorney Daliah Saper, we unpack the recent Lululemon v. Costco lawsuit and what it reveals about how far brands can go to try to protect their designs. We break down the basics of intellectual property law, and explore how up-and-coming designers can safeguard their creative work. Finally, we clarify the crucial difference between a “dupe” and a counterfeit item. Whether you’re a creator, consumer, or just curious about IP law, this conversation will give you the legal insight behind the “dupe” trend! If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources to learn more: https://abovethelaw.com/2023/12/fashion-victims-dupes-are-a-serious-problem/ https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/imitation-game-legal-considerations-with-dupes-based-business-models https://www.offitkurman.com/offit-kurman-blogs/trade-dress-at-a-glance-protecting-the-look-and-feel-of-a-product

This week, Nicole Polisar revisits the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the first U.S. court case ever broadcast live on radio. Nicole reconstructs the drama between defense attorney Clarence Darrow and prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, examining how the case reflected early 20th-century tensions between religion, education, and democracy. Drawing on authentic courtroom dialogue and later Supreme Court decisions such as Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, and Kitzmiller v. Dover, the episode traces the enduring constitutional and cultural impact of a trial that continues to define the boundary between science and belief. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources to learn more: https://archive.org/details/worldsmostfamous0000john/page/178/mode/1up https://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm https://www.history.com/articles/scopes-trial

Historically, U.S. courts and lawmakers have wrestled with, and debated, how far the government can- and should- reach into our private lives and under what circumstances. From the mid-century to today, we have witnessed numerous examples of federal overreach and abuse of power. From J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI’s Cointelpro surveillance programs, the Nixon Watergate scandal, and the Church Committee investigations, the Patriot Act and Edward Snowden’s leak of NSA warrantless surveillance, each generation new technology outpace old legal limits. This is especially true in the age of personalized tech, mass surveillance capabilities, and non-stop mass data collection and transfer. In today's episode, associate editor Jay Fort considers the historical interplay between the 4th Amendment and technology, exploring how its protections against unreasonable searches and seizures continue to be stress tested, as the Trump Administration urges- and compels- government agencies, as well as state governments, to provide personal data on millions of Americans. We will look at the Federal contracts with private technology companies, like Palantir, who have been tasked with centralizing massive datasets of Americans persona- presumptively private- data. To provide a helpful foundation, we will bring in a Constitutional law scholar, Curt and Linda Rodin Associate Professor of Law and Social Justice, Professor Alan Raphael, to help us understand the 4th Amendment in historical-to-modern context. Here, we consider historical challenges and modern parallels, focusing on the 4th amendment and Constitutional challenges, examining the ever-growing risks of emerging technology. In the end, the question remains: can our 4th Amendment privacy rights survive an ever expansive, and pervasive, wave of technological innovation and surveillance applications? And, at what point, will we look around and realize that in our ambition - like Icarus- we have finally “Flown to close to the sun.” If your interested in the episode's topic please check out these resources to learn more: https://cardozolawreview.com/remedying-unconstitutional-immigration-enforcement/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-1/ALDE_00000055/ https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/privacy/privacy-laws-us-vs-eu-gdpr/#the-basics-of-each-law

In this week's episode, associate editor Carter Pasternak explores President Donald Trump’s 2025 efforts to federalize state National Guard units and deploy active-duty military forces in U.S. cities, beginning in California, extending to Washington, D.C., and now Chicago. It examines how these actions raise profound constitutional questions about the balance between state sovereignty and federal power. The discussion traces the issues’ constitutional roots, outlines the statutory framework, and explores possible loopholes available to the executive. The episode reviews Newsom v. Trump before turning to Illinois, where similar legal challenges could set a lasting precedent for the future role of the military in American civil life and the scope of presidential discretionary power within the states. If you're interested in the episode's topic please check out these resources to learn more: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-does-us-national-guard-do https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/defining--rebellion--in-10-u.s.c.---12406-and-the-insurrection-act https://protectdemocracy.org/work/domestic-deployment-military-explained/ https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained?utm.com https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/presidents-power-call-out-national-guard-not-blank-check?utm.com https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-can-the-president-put-soldiers-on-the-streets-of-los-angeles/ https://statesunited.org/resources/newsom-v-trump/ https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lingering-uncertainty-in-judge-breyer-s-newsom-v.-trump-ruling?utm.com

This is the introductory episode for a series on “Future of Law School”. This episode establishes that there are real issues facing legal education and begins to unpack some of them. Future episodes will delve deeper into the issues as well as possible solutions.

In this week's episode Senior Editor Rachel Still unpacks the legal system’s embrace of “excited delirium,” a discredited medical theory used to explain deaths in police custody. We trace its origins in the flimsy case reports of Miami medical examiner Charles Wetli, its spread through small, deeply flawed studies, and its weaponization by law enforcement and expert witnesses. Drawing on the work of Physicians for Human Rights and Osagie K. Obasogie’s Harvard Law Review article, we explore how courts transformed pseudo-science into “legal fact” through precedent and evidentiary shortcuts. We discuss the racial genealogy of pathologizing Blackness—from drapetomania to schizophrenia to excited delirium—and how these diagnoses have served to legitimize state violence. The episode also highlights recent developments: major medical organizations rejecting the term, states like California, Colorado, and Minnesota banning its use, and the Elijah McClain trials exposing its deadly consequences. Ultimately, we argue that excited delirium isn’t medicine—it’s narrative, power, and the law working to shield the state from accountability.

The Podvocate went live from the activities fair to ask attendees the question: "What has been the most surprising thing about law school so far?"

The incoming editorial board members for the Podvocate introduce themselves. We look forward to a great year of producing!

Please enjoy a recording of The Podvocate's first-ever live event held on April 22, 2025, titled "Resistance: A Panel on Practice-Based Activism." The panel was moderated by editors-in-chief Casey Callahan and Ben Recht and featured guests Rachel Cohen, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal Ken Upton.

This podcast episode explores the question “Is law school worth it?” from a personal perspective as a part-time student balancing work, tuition costs, and home responsibilities. The host shares their experience funding school through their salary and scholarships, while acknowledging the emotional and practical impact on their spouse, who has taken on more household duties. They weigh the financial burden, the time investment, and the sacrifices against the long-term career benefits and personal fulfillment that law school can offer. Ultimately, the episode highlights how the value of law school is deeply personal, and encourages listeners to reflect on their own goals, support systems, and definitions of success.

Sovereign Citizens are a group without a central authoritative ideology; but a throughline that holds that US law does not apply to them. The most common idea ius that the passage of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War created a second class of citizen, and that only by reading up on your rights as a “living person” can one avail themselves of the blessings of “Common Law”. In this episode, I examined some of the consequences of this utterly fake ideology, and what happens when it is argued before a judge. Though I do find their ideas absurd, I try throughout the episode to keep the humanity of pseudolaw’s practitioners in mind. Recourses: Overview on Sovereign Citizen Ideology: https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Sov%20citizens%20quick%20guide%20Nov%2013.pdf Video of Michigan Sovereign Citizen/ Ernie Tertellgate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxMzcFJ-Lc&t=1039s

Please enjoy this episode from the archive with former Editor-in-Chief, Marisa Polowitz. This episode features a portion of the 2022 Symposium presented by Loyola's Journal of Regulatory Compliance, "Demystifying Data Privacy," specifically the panel conversation, "Paving the Way for Privacy."

Please enjoy this episode from the archive with former Editor-in-Chief, Marisa Polowitz. This episode features a portion of the 2022 Symposium presented by Loyola's Journal of Regulatory Compliance, "Demystifying Data Privacy."

Please enjoy this episode from the archive with former Editor-in-Chief, Marisa Polowitz. This episode features a portion of the 2022 Symposium presented by Loyola's Journal of Regulatory Compliance, specifically the panel entitled "Developments in Healthcare Data Regulation," moderated by Marisa Polowitz.

This episode confronts the “Trifecta of Violence” as it relates to escalating violence against transgender people, particularly Black transwomen, and the systemic forces enabling it. From Orwellian laws targeting trans existence to unchecked citizen brutality, the legal system and societal apathy lead to state-sanctioned and judicially-approved violence against Black trans bodies. The violent policy enacted against trans people does not, and will not end with transpeople—exemplified by the story of Kalaya Morton, a butch (Black masculine lesbian) from Arizona, who was assaulted in a public restroom by male law enforcement under the false accusation of being trans, anti-trans policy is meant to police identity deemed ‘deviant’ by white cisgendered heteropatriarchy. Angela Irvine, You Can’t Run from the Police: Developing a Feminist Criminology that Incorporates Black Transgender Women, 44 SW. L. REV. 553 (2015). C. Riley Snorton, Black on Both Sides: A Racial History of Trans Identity, Uni. Minn. Press (2017) Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do, Vikings 140 (2019). Elias Cosenza Krell, Is Transmisogyny Killing Trans Women of Color?, 4 TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, Duke. Uni. Press. 226 (2017). Emily Lenning, et. al., The Trifecta of Violence: A Socio-Historical Comparison of Lynching and Violence Against Transgender Women, 29 Critical Criminology 151 (Dec. 2020). https://www.advocate.com/news/lesbian-mistaken-transgender-arizona-walmart https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/transgender-people-and-law-enforcement-interactions-rights-and-realities/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ https://www.edweek.org/leadership/pronouns-for-trans-nonbinary-students-the-states-with-laws-that-restrict-them-in-schools/2023/06 https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/hrcs-2024-epidemic-of-violence-report-fatal-violence-against-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-people-continues-with-black-trans-women-comprising-nearly-half-of-the-deaths https://www.them.us/story/trans-day-of-remembrance-recorded-deaths-black-trans-women https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2025/03/28/ohio-bill-requires-parental-permission-student-name-pronoun-change-house-bill-190/82702958007/ https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/03/28/schools-must-share-child-gender-identity-info-with-parents-trump-education-department-says/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/ https://www.advocate.com/news/lesbian-mistaken-transgender-arizona-walmart

In this episode, we talk with a former lawyer, Greyson “Grey” Fitzgerald, who made the leap from Big Law to tattooing. They share what pushed them to leave the legal world, the challenges of starting fresh in a creative industry, and how their background in law still plays a role in their new career. Whether you're interested in career transitions or just curious about the path from courtrooms to tattoo studios, this conversation offers a look into making big changes.

Andrea Lyon is a criminal defense lawyer, author, speaker, professor and former law school dean. Dubbed “The Angel of Death Row” by the Chicago Tribune, she was the first woman to serve as lead attorney in a death penalty case, and she holds an unparalleled 19 wins in 19 capital cases. Andrea’s publications include over fifty law review articles, over ten practice manuals and books focused on her career and social justice in America. Katie sat down with Andrea to talk about her remarkable career, the challenges she faced in her early work, some advice for managing high-profile cases, and her enduring belief in the power of redemption. Resources: Andrea Lyon profile at Lyon & Kerr: https://www.lyonkerr.com/andrea-lyon/ Select publications by Andrea Lyon: Angel of Death Row: My Life as a Death Penalty Defense Lawyer: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6933361-angel-of-death-row Fixing Legal Injustice in America: The Case for a Defender General of the United States: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538164662/Fixing-Legal-Injustice-in-America-The-Case-for-a-Defender-General-of-the-United-States Additional Resources: John Conroy’s “House of Screams”, the 1990 Chicago Reader coverage of Jon Burge and the Area 2 police: https://chicagoreader.com/news/house-of-screams/