What are the legal implications of the unprecedented mass pardoning of the January 6th rioters? What does it say about American rule of law?

President Biden’s DOJ prosecuted nearly 1,600 of the January 6, 2021, rioters—many for acts of shocking violence against police and government offices. On January 20, newly sworn-in President Trump, in one of his first official acts, issued a sweeping grant of clemency to all of the rioters charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol attack. He pardoned most defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The response from some of these violent rioters since the pardons has been alarming.

“The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. We need to find and put them behind bars for what they did,” said Enrique Tarrio, the former national Proud Boys leader, sentenced to a 22-year sentence on seditious conspiracy charges, on Alex Jones' podcast soon after his pardon.

Our guests today are Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar and former DOJ prosecutor Brendan Ballou.

Sinnar’s scholarship, including a recent study of hate groups, focuses on the legal treatment of political violence, the procedural dimensions of civil rights litigation, and the role of institutions in protecting individual rights and democratic values in the national security context

Ballou was a lawyer at the Department of Justice for five years. He resigned on January 23 soon after President Trump's pardons. In a New York Times opinion essay, he wrote: “For while some convicted rioters seem genuinely remorseful, and others appear simply ready to put politics behind them, many others are emboldened by the termination of what they see as unjust prosecutions. Freed by the president, they have never been more dangerous.” He graduated from Stanford Law in 2016.

Links:

• Shirin Sinnar >>> Stanford Law page
• New York Times piece by Brendan Ballou >>> I Prosecuted the Capitol Rioters. They Have Never Been More Dangerous.

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

(17:24) Addressing Militia Violence and Legal Gaps

(21:37) State-Level Prosecutions and Risks of Expanding Criminal Laws

(25:27) Pardons, Political Violence, and Historical Parallels

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

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans’ private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation’s largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.

Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case.

The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.

Links:

• Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page
• “The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication 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 Rise of Executive Power

(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy
(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government
(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach
(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court
(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington

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

When a single federal judge can freeze a president’s policy nationwide, it raises big questions about checks and balances and democratic accountability. That’s one reason nationwide injunctions have become central to some of today’s most consequential legal battles—and why the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA matters.

At a live recording, Stanford Legal host Diego Zambrano sat down with Professor Mila Sohoni, one of the country’s leading scholars on federal courts and administrative law, for a conversation that moved from President Trump’s day-one birthright-citizenship order to the Court’s ruling in CASA, including how lower courts are now navigating the decision’s new, but murky, constraints on nationwide injunctions.

Sohoni breaks the protection these injunctions can offer when sweeping executive actions threaten millions, the risks of empowering individual judges to halt national policy, and the incentives for strategic forum shopping in a polarized era. She also explains how CASA reins in—but doesn’t eliminate—the nationwide injunction, leaving room for broad relief through class actions, universal vacatur, and “complete relief” findings.

The discussion sheds light on how the legal landscape is shifting after CASA, and why nationwide injunctions continue to shape major clashes between the courts and the executive branch.

Links:

• Mila Sohoni >>> Stanford Law page
• “The Puzzle of Procedural Originalism” >>> 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
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:12:01) Epistemic and Democratic Arguments Against Nationwide Injunctions

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

Over a 35-year career at the Department of Justice, Jonathan Wroblewski, JD ’86, watched the country’s stance on criminal sentencing harden, soften, recalibrate, and shift again. One of his early cases at the DOJ, which involved a cross-burning in rural Georgia, sparked a fascination with sentencing policy that shaped the rest of his career. Today, he is one of the country’s leading experts on sentencing law and policy.

In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan talks with Wroblewski about crime and punishment, including the evolution of modern sentencing policies. Wroblewski, who has been serving as a visiting instructor at Stanford Law teaching courses on sentencing and AI in criminal justice, also offers a look inside his long career at the DOJ, where Karlan also served two separate stints as a political appointee.

The conversation moves between how crime waves shape public attitudes, why some sentencing reforms take hold while others stall, and what happens inside the DOJ when long-standing norms begin to erode. Wroblewski’s stories, drawn from decades of work across administrations, bring those shifts into sharper focus.

Links:

• Jonathan Wroblewski >>> 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
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00) Intro to Jonathan Wroblewski’s Career

(05:01) Evolution of Sentencing Policies

(15:01) Shifts in Sentencing Philosophies

(25:01) Public Perception and Crime Rates

(35:01) Future Perspectives for Fair and Effective Legal Practices

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

“The amount of chaos that’s been introduced into the federal health policy landscape is unprecedented,” says Michelle Mello, professor at Stanford Law School and the Stanford University School of Medicine.

That turmoil, she explains, has left major gaps in expertise, trust, and leadership—and states are rushing to fill the void. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pamela S. Karlan talks with Mello about what this moment means for the future of science, public health, research, and the law.

Mello describes how the hollowing out of career expertise at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has upended vaccine policy and research funding, forcing states into unfamiliar leadership roles. She and Karlan also unpack how shifting scientific guidance during the pandemic eroded public confidence, how politicized grant-making is reshaping the research ecosystem, and state governments’ growing role in creating what she calls a “shadow CDC.”

Despite the turmoil, Mello points to a few bright spots: state-level experimentation could generate valuable evidence of what works and what does not, and there are reassuring signs from the lower courts, she says, which she believes are capable of separating law from politics.

Earlier this year, Mello explored many of these themes in her JAMA Health Forum paper, “The Hard Road Ahead for State Public Health Departments.”

Links:

• Michelle Mello >>> Stanford Law page
• JAMA Health Forum paper >>> “The Hard Road Ahead for State Public Health Departments

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X
  

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

When the National Guard shows up in American cities, it’s usually after hurricanes, fires, or floods, not political fights. But recent federal deployments have changed the landscape and raised pressing questions about how far a president’s domestic military powers can go. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pam Karlan talks with Professor Bernadette Meyler about the growing use of the National Guard for domestic law enforcement and what it reveals about shifting boundaries of presidential power.

Links:

• Bernadette Meyler >>> Stanford Law page
• Theaters of Pardoning >>> Stanford Law publications page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00:00) Overview of National Guard Deployment

(00:06:01) Changes in Immigration Enforcement

(00:13:01) Continuous Deployment and Monitoring Elections

(00:18:01) Training and Law Enforcement Activities of National Guard

(00:24:31) Presidential Powers and Constraints

(00:29:38) Ninth Circuit Panel’s Decision and Future Prospects

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

When politics drives prosecutions, what happens to the rule of law? Are we in uncharted waters? Stanford Legal host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with her colleague criminal justice expert Robert Weisberg to unpack the extraordinary federal indictments of former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—with more potentially on the way.

Weisberg, the Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, explains how grand jury indictments normally work, why these cases are unusual, and how selective and vindictive prosecution claims might play out when the evidence of political motivation is broadcast via Truth Social missives. Karlan and Weisberg also discuss how Justice Department norms separating the White House from individual charging decisions have been systematically broken—and why these indictments, built on shaky legal ground and thin narratives, could face serious procedural challenges.

Links:

• Robert Weisberg >>> 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
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

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

In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and assumed the power to levy tariffs, introducing uncertainty into global trading by reneging on previously negotiated agreements. One of the attorneys representing the challengers to the president’s decree in Trump v. VOS is Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a constitutional law expert and former Tenth Circuit judge. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited, is set to have ramifications well beyond trade. As McConnell wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed: “The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952…Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president’s trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution’s architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government’s three branches from becoming all powerful.” McConnell joins Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a discussion about this important case, exploring whether presidents have the authority to tax through tariffs without clear congressional approval, the historical and constitutional roots of "no taxation without representation," and the seismic ramifications of a redefinition of the limits of executive economic power.

Links:

• Michael McConnell >>> Stanford Law page

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

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