Published by Touro Law Review
Touro Law Review hosts a podcast discussing the latest legal issues or topics.
Listen on Apple Podcasts57 min
On the last day of the 2025-26 term, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Barbara , the birthright citizenship case. As has been long settled, under the Fourteenth Amendment, with limited exceptions, any childborn in the United States is a citizen of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion decisively upheld the district court’s judgment invalidating President Donald J. Trump’s executive order seeking to restrictthe scope of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion was joined by four other justices regarding the Fourteenth Amendment and five other justices regarding federal nationality law. Ultimately, six justices wrote opinions in the case. In this Touro Law Reviewpodcast, Professor Rachel Rosenbloom analyzes the Court’s decision and explains the significance of each justice’s opinion.
1 hr 4 min
Every law student engages with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Civil War Amendments in the Constitutional Law course. Few, however, know the story of two seventeenth-century ships that sailed from Europe and landed in America and subsequently shaped the way in which the Founders and their successors understood the nation’s history. Professor David S. Reynolds explores this history in his most recent book, Two Ships: Jamestown 1619, Plymouth 1620, and the Struggle for the Soul of America. Two Ships tells the story of the arrival of the White Lion in 1619, which brought the first enslaved Africans to Virginia, and of the Mayflower in 1620, which carried the Pilgrims to Plymouth. As Reynolds recounts, the ships became dueling symbols in the American imagination. In his discussion with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Reynolds tells the story of each vessel’s voyage and explains how they became linked in the history of the colonies and then the United States. As Reynolds explains, one of the most striking features of Two Ships is how the history of the two ships has been cast and recast in response to the political and cultural context of each era. The discussion concludes with Reynolds’ thoughts on what this history means for the United States as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
42 min
Every law student learns about New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in their Constitutional Law course. In 1964, the Supreme Court revised First Amendment law by holding that a public officialmust show “actual malice” in order to prevail on a libel claim—that is, the public official must show that a defamatory statement was false and that the speaker made the statement knowing that it was false or “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” But not every student knows the fascinating civil rights history behind this seminal case. Professor Samantha Barbas recounts that history in Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan , published in 2023. In this podcast with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Barbas discusses the research that inspired her to write the book, the historical context in which Sullivan and other libel cases were litigated, and Justice William Brennan’s role in writing the opinion for a unanimous court.
1 hr 4 min
The Supreme Court’s decision this year in the tariffs case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump , involved an important test of the scope of the President’s power. Professor Peter Shane discusses the Court’s ruling setting aside President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by a six-three vote. Significantly, Professor Shane explains, the Court engaged in an extensive debate over the application of the major questions doctrine (MQD). Under the MQD, as Professor Shane has written, government officials who undertake novel, “unheralded” administrative initiatives of unusual economic and political significance must be able to cite statutes that authorize their initiatives “clearly.” In Learning Resources , three justices in the majority said the MQD applies and supports ruling against the President andthree said the MQD was not needed for such a ruling. Ultimately, seven justices wrote opinions in the case, and much of the discussion was about the MQD. The conversation then turns to an article Professor Shane recently wrote in the Washington Monthly about how the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources could be applied to a legal challenge to a recent change in civil service rules by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that could enable the at-will firing of any government career professional whose work affects government policymaking. (See How the Supreme Court’s TariffRuling Could Save the Civil Service | Washington Monthly .) It’s an intriguing suggestion, and the discussion concludes with Professor Shane explaining how the Court could rule in such a case.
54 min
The Erie doctrine delights Civil Procedure professors and often bedevils law students. On this Touro Law Review podcast, Touro’s Civil Procedure faculty explore and explain the doctrine in their discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Berk v. Choy. Professor John Quinn summarizes the case, Professor Laura Dooley explains Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion, and Professor Deseriee Kennedy discusses the aims of the Erie doctrine and how Berk furthers them. Professor Rodger Citron moderates the discussion, in which the professors also talk about how they plan to use Berk when teaching Civil Procedure.
55 min
On January 21, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Cook, one of two cases pending before the Court involving challenges to the President’s exercise of his Article II removal power. Cook arises from President Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, which, thus far, has been preliminarily enjoined by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. The district court stated, “Cook has made a strong showing that her purported removal was done in violation of the Federal Reserve Act's ‘for cause’ provision.” The other removal case before the Supreme Court is Trump v. Slaughter, which involves the termination of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission and was argued before the Court in December 2025. The issue in this case is whether the President has the authority to dismiss Commissioner Slaughter “at will” – that is, for any reason, including a policy disagreement – despite Congress’s restricting the President’s authority to remove a commissioner and a 1935 Supreme Court decision upholding that restriction. The cases raise interesting and important questions about separation of powers doctrine, the President’s removal power, and Congress’s role in creating administrative agencies. Perhaps the most important question in Cook is whether, if at all, the Federal Reserve differs from other agencies regarding the President’s removal power. Professor Ilan Wurman discusses the issues raised by both cases in this podcast discussion with Associate Dean Rodger Citron. Among other things, Wurman explains why he believes the Federal Reserve is not different from other agencies but discusses why a number of justices – perhaps a majority – may not agree with him.
49 min
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on November 5 in two cases involving challenges to President Donald J. Trump’s tariffs imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Professor Susan Morse discusses the legal issues raised by the cases and how the Court may address them. Ultimately, Morse concludes, the safest (and perhaps most likely) path for the Court may be to decide the case as a matter of “ordinary” statutory construction without resorting to either the major questions doctrine or the nondelegation doctrine.
46 min
This episode explores the intersection of fiction writing and the practice of law. Victor Suthammanont, a writer and attorney, discusses his first novel, Hollow Spaces, published earlier this year. Hollow Spaces explores race and racism, the legal system and the search for truth, and, perhaps more than anything else, family – the enduring impressions, connections, and relations between husband and wife, parents and children, and brother and sister. In his conversation with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Suthammanont describes his journey from student actor to experienced attorney and published author. Even now, Suthammanont continues to draw on skills he developed as an actor in his legal practice. Suthammanont then discusses various aspects of the novel, including the characters’ efforts to learn the truth about the underlying events that shape the stories told in the novel. Whether you are an attorney or a law student, a writer or a theater kid considering a career in law, you will enjoy listening to this episode.
43 min
Political gerrymandering – the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an advantage over its rivals – is in the news nowadays. Indeed, with Texas and California leading the way, it is no exaggeration to say that we are in a gerrymandering arms race. How did we get here? Are there any limits on gerrymandering under federal law? To the extent that federal law is limited regarding the constraints it imposes on gerrymandering, are there other ways to challenge this controversial political practice? Professor Ruth Greenwood discusses these questions on this Touro Law Review podcast, explaining the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019 and various legal challenges to the federal Voting Rights Act over the years. Her conversation with Associate Dean Rodger Citron provides an instructive overview of election law and thoughts on how to respond, legally and politically, to the most blatant gerrymanders occurring today
49 min
In his second term as President, Donald J. Trump has set about remaking the federal government. Recently the President sought to terminate Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, asserting that she allegedly engaged in mortgage fraud and that this alleged misconduct constituted legal “cause” for her removal. Cook has denied the allegations and sued to retain her position. Thus far, a federal district court has issued a preliminary injunction preventing her removal. The Trump administration has filed a notice of appeal. Cook’s case raises a number of fascinating legal questions: Could the alleged mortgage fraud, which is claimed to have occurred prior to her appointment to the Federal Reserve, constitute “cause” for termination? The district court said no. Cook also asserted that her termination was procedurally improper. The district court indicated its agreement, stating that the “removal also likely violated Cook’s procedural rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” As Cook’s case proceeds through the legal system, federal courts, including possibly the Supreme Court, will have to address whether her claims are justiciable – that is, whether they are capable of being decided by a court. Beau J. Baumann, Ph.D. in Law candidate at Yale and former Justice Department attorney, discusses these issues with Associate Dean Rodger Citron.
51 min
On the last day of the 2024-25, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. CASA , involving the validity of universal injunctions. By a 6-3 vote, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request to limit the availability of such injunctions in a case in which the plaintiffs challenged the legality of President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. CASA may seem like a somewhattechnical case about equitable remedies, but in fact CASA tells us a great deal about the current Supreme Court, especially regarding its views on presidential power and separation of powers in a time of political and legal transition. Jessica Silbey, Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law, discusses CASA with Associate Dean Rodger Citron on this Touro Law Review podcast.
35 min
"Orwellian" is a critical term in our current political discourse. The phrase is often invoked in connection with the novel 1984, written by George Orwell and published in 1949. On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Associate Dean Rodger Citron and Professor Allison Caffarone discuss what it's like to read 1984 in 2025. They discuss the novel's literary merits as well as its political insights. Interestingly, neither is particularly enamored of 1984, though they agree that the novel continues to be relevant more than 75 years after it was published and 40 years after 1984.
39 min
Every day, it seems, brings a new national news story about higher education. Beyond the headlines, the crisis in highereducation poses economic and other risks to state and local governments that support and are supported by universities, colleges and professional schools. Touro University’s PatriciaSalkin and Albany Law School’s Jenean Taranto explore these risks in a forthcoming article in State and Local News, published by the American Bar Association. Provost Salkin and Associate Dean Taranto discuss their article in this Touro Law Review podcast. They describe how institutions of higher education boost the economies of state and local governments by, among other things, contributing to a stable real estate market and supporting “local stores, restaurants, hotels and other attractions in the areas where campuses are located." Salkin and Taranto also discuss how recent executive orders, as well as the proposed College Cost Reduction Act, may affect the economies of state and local governments.
46 min
On this episode, Professors Laura Dooley and John Quinn discuss Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, a recent Supreme Court case involving federal subject matter jurisdiction. Royal Canin is a straightforward case: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to eliminate all federal law claims and include only state law claims after the case is removed to federal court, the plaintiff’s case can no longer be heard in federal court. There is no original subject matter jurisdiction because there are no federal law claims, and there is no supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the case must be remanded to state court. As Professors Dooley and Quinn explain, Royal Canin is a helpful case for understanding all aspects of federal subject matter jurisdiction: original jurisdiction, removal, and supplemental jurisdiction. Along with moderator Rodger Citron, who also teaches Civil Procedure, they discuss how they plan to use the case with their students.
52 min
On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Professor Tiffany Li describes her journey from law student at Georgetown Law School to faculty member at the University of San Francisco Law School. In her conversation with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Professor Li talks about the importance of professional networking, the ever-present need to write, and ways to distinguish yourself as a candidate even if you did not attend an elite law school.
50 min
Professor Jorge Roig teaches Constitutional Law at Touro Law Center. On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Professor Roig discusses three recent Supreme Court decisions involving the application of the First Amendment in the context of social media. Initially Roig discusses TikTok Inc. v. Garland decision, in which the Court upheld a law making “it unlawful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok, unless U. S. operation of the platform is severed from Chinese control.” As Roig explains, the Court rejected the petitioners’ First Amendment claim and held that the law was “facially content neutral” and “justified by a content-neutral rationale.” Roig then discusses Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and Murthy v. Missouri, in which the Court’s analysis of First Amendment issues is intertwined with procedural issues that led to remands back to the lower courts for further consideration of the social media platforms’ claims. In his conversation with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Roig critiques as well as describes existing law and its application in each case.
50 min
Right out of law school, Joshua Perry moved to New Orleans to work as a public defender. In the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when reformers were trying to fix a broken criminal justice system on the fly, Perry was thrown untrained into defending the city’s most vulnerable people. Over the next decade, Perry served as general counsel at the Orleans Public Defenders and then Executive Director at the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights, the city’s juvenile defender. Now, Perry’s debut novel Seraphim – about two carpetbagging public defenders who end up defending a youth accused of high-profile murder – reflects on that experience. It’s a noir legal thriller, and also a meditation on inequality, Judaism, violence, and the often-complicated relationship between fathers and sons. Perry discusses all of these subjects with Associate Dean Rodger Citron in this podcast.
42 min
On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Touro Law Professors Peter Zablotsky and Gabriel Weil, engage in a discussion about artificial intelligence and how this technology poses potential risks. As AI becomes more prevalent and its technical capabilities extend further beyond its current capacity, there is both a danger for misuse and for AI system failures. Professor Weil addresses how AI risk poses a problem for law and policy and further raises the argument that tort law is the best way to govern AI risk. Professor Weil further investigates potential AI liability under a negligence scheme, what precautionary measures can be taken, and whether this type of technology use can be categorized as abnormally dangerous which would require a lens of strict liability. Furthermore, Professor Zablotksy and Professor Weil contemplate the effectiveness of potential legislation and how judges may struggle to understand AI and its technical operations when applying the law. Professor Weil’s recent paper, “ Tort Law as a Tool for Mitigating Catastrophic Risk from Artificial Intelligence ,” will be of interest to anyone listening.
50 min
Every era has its trial of the century. In 1925, Tennessee prosecuted John T. Scopes, a high school teacher, for teaching evolution in violation of state law. The sensational trial drew nationwide attention and included an epic clash between two lawyers – William Jennings Bryan, one of the prosecutors, and Clarence Darrow, one of the defense attorneys. In Keeping the Faith , Brenda Wineapple provides an account of the Scopes trial while exploring the case from different perspectives. In a front-cover New York Times review, Matthew Stewart described the book as “history at its most delicious, presented free from the musty smell of the archives where it was clearly assembled with great care.” Ms. Wineapple discusses the legal, political, and cultural aspects of the Scopes trial with Associate Dean Rodger Citron in this Touro Law Review podcast.
35 min
Alicia Bannon, Director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, discusses the politics of state judicial elections with Associate Dean Rodger Citron. In 38 states, judges are elected. As Bannon describes, judicial elections used to be “sleepy” – not much campaigning was done and not much money was spent. For a number of reasons, that has changed. In 2023, for example, about $51 million was spent on the election of a state supreme court justice in Wisconsin. Furthermore, as Bannon explains, state courts matter. The most notable example of the importance of state courts is that they very well may have the final say on laws allowing or restricting access to abortion after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022. Bannon describes how judicial elections have become more politicized, what effect this has on the operation and perception of state judicial systems, and what, if anything, can be done in response to these developments.