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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 CASAwith Associate Dean Rodger Citron on this Touro Law Review podcast.

"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.