The Podvocate

Associate editor Jay Fort is stepping back a bit to focus on the current moment and status in Constitutional law more broadly, taking a bird's-eye, high-level overview of some of the most pressing issues re-shaping modern trends in constitutional law and jurisprudence. We’ll discuss the power and independence of the individual branches of government, independent agencies, focusing on the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court and its current trajectory. We’ll consider how, increasingly, the obvious ideological makeup and overt politicization of the Supreme Court is, perhaps, more apparent than we’ve seen in decades. Specifically, we’ll evaluate two major trends: the Court’s increasingly common use of the “shadow docket” (private decisions made without full briefing, argument, or explanation of the result) and its interpretation of the “unitary executive theory,” namely increasing the power of the executive and decreasing the authority of congressionally established independent agencies. Recently, the legal world has witnessed established precedents, and even the very notion of Stare Decisis, are more overtly scrutinized, partisanly narrowed, and outright overturned. In many ways, we see how the court’s newly cemented ideological split presaged many of its current trajectory and judicial outcomes, re-kindling controversies involving the Court’s institutional legitimacy and independence, ethical standards, and more. Notably considering the recent continuum between the first and second Trump administrations, noting how the current Court continues to change course, handing down public and increasingly private (shadow docket) decisions whose impact implicates a host of foundational issues, including: executive authority to voting rights, first amendment rights, education rights and policy, administrative law and procedure, criminal procedure and civil liberties, and more. These impactful determinations reflect a federal legal land that has been rapidly redefined by hyper-partisan Supreme Court decisions impacting statute, policy, and the practice of law, in general. In our previous episode, we considered the Constitutional issues at the heart of Criminal procedure protections, particularly analyzing how 4th Amendment rights and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures continue to be uniquely stress-tested in an era of ever-emerging technology, social media interfaces, and mass data surveillance opportunities. We considered the current administration’s “unitary executive theory” and blatant attempt to reinterpret the limits of executive authority as the new trump administration seeks to compel- and coerce- government agencies and state governments, to given them unfettered private, personal data of millions of Americans, tapping private technology companies- like Palantir to centralize (hoover) the datasets of countless Americans personal- presumably private- data. To help us better understand this moment in time and its constitutional law implications, we’ll turn to Professor Alan Raphael, Curt and Linda Rodin Associate Professor of Law and Social Justice. Professor Raphael has taught at the law school since 1983, and his current classes include constitutional law, Criminal Procedure: adjudication, and Criminal Procedure: investigation. Further, we look to Professor Raphael to help us unpack and evaluate the status of constitutional rights and civil liberties implicating our current moment in constitutional law, including: fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights; the independence of the federal courts, the role of executive and independent agencies; constitutional rights and precedent today, criminal procedure and current stat of policing practice criminal justice system & real-world operation of free speech in a hyper connected moment; voting rights & election law in practice; educational rights and policy, and current debates around; judicial Independence & institutional trust.

This is second half of a two-part episode on the Peacemakers and restorative justice. In this portion, we discuss the impact of restorative justice in schools and the surrounding communities, touching on the ability of the Peacemakers to bring community together during Project Midway Blitz. Specifically, we focus on how discipline has evolved in recent years and the changes brought by the shift to a restorative justice lens. If you were interested in this week's episode, check our this resource: https://www.reillyschool.com/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=955937&id=0

In this episode Associate Editor Delaney Ferrer and Co-Editor-in-Chief Isabella Lund sit down with Loyola Law Professors Paradise, Rushin, Waller, and Weinmeyer to discuss the legal issues spotted in the fan favorite movie Jurassic Park. From devastating negligence and corporate espionage to regulatory failures and ethical lapses, we issue-spot the chaos behind the park’s collapse and ask ourselves: who’s ultimately responsible when “life finds a way.” If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out this resource: https://colossal.com/mammoth/

This is part one of a two-part episode. In this first episode, Co-Editor in Chief Isabella Lund talks to Emily and Mauricio Pineda about their work with the Peacemakers at Reilly Elementary School, a local Chicago public school. The Peacemakers is a restorative justice program involving students grades four through eight. The discussion goes through how the peacemakers came to be and the challenges they’ve faced along the way, focusing on how restorative justice benefits students both long and short term. Check out this resource to learn more: https://www.reillyschool.com/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=955937&id=0

On March 12, 2026, Senior Editor Rachel Still sat down with Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Mariyana Spyropoulos. In this episode of The Podvocate, we sit down with Clerk Spyropoulos to discuss her first year leading one of the largest court systems in the country. She breaks down the often-overlooked role of the clerk’s office as the “front door” to the legal system, managing everything from case intake to critical data reporting and coordination with judges, attorneys, and law enforcement. Clerk Spyropoulos reflects on her early priorities—transparency, accountability, and accessibility—and the concrete reforms implemented to modernize operations, including new customer feedback systems, internal process audits, and expanded language access. The conversation also explores broader access-to-justice challenges, particularly for individuals navigating a complex and emotionally taxing court system without legal representation. Clerk Spyropoulos highlights the importance of balancing technological innovation, including potential uses of AI, with the human element essential to public service. She also discusses the role of public trust, community outreach, and civic engagement in strengthening the legal system. Ultimately, this episode offers a behind-the-scenes look at how administrative leadership shapes the everyday functioning—and fairness—of the courts. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources: https://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/people/MariyanaT.Spyropoulos https://www.injusticewatch.org/topics/judges/judicial-elections/

In this week's episode, associate editor Rachel Urbash examines the Prairieland 19 case from the ground up, discussing the contested facts, the unprecedented use of domestic terrorism organization classifications, and the trial. The episode discusses the Prairieland 19 case through the lens of the history of the right to protest and Trumps Antifa designation and NSPM-7 memorandum paving the way for the federal governments first successful domestic terrorism prosecution of its kind. This episode considers the line between our constitutional right to protest and the government’s power to classify that protest as domestic terrorism. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check our these resources: https://jacobin.com/2026/02/prairieland-trump-domestic-terrorism-ice https://www.democracynow.org/2026/3/17/antifa https://prairielanddefendants.com/updates/the-federal-trial-is-over-what-will-this-verdict-mean-for-dissent/

In today’s episode, associate editor Jay Fort considers the rapid development and implementation of Artificial Intelligence and automation technology across industry. By the end of 2025, an AI Arms Race was in full swing. An explosion in Artificial Intelligence (AI) development and automation is taking the U.S. and global economic systems by storm. Companies like Nvidia (the first company to reach an approximately 5 trillion valuation), Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Open AI (formerly a non-profit which still cites the common good as a core tenant of its charter) have kicked off what is widely understood to be an AI "Arms Race." Investors- from venture capitalists to private equity behemoths- continue to pour billions of dollars into AI technology companies and associated ventures. As AI companies move from beta testing to widespread adoption and integration, debates on AI transparency, accountability, and regulation have risen to the forefront. As a result of this monumental shift and ongoing uncertainty, the necessity of properly understanding (and regulating) AI and automation technology is now more pressing than ever before. Further, the need for strong regulatory oversight- including a broad regulatory consensus, clear guidance, a baseline code of ethics (at minimum), as well as strong federal and state regulation- is a pressing regulatory necessity and, possibly the pivotal decision of our time. Ultimately, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, this emergent AI era requires an all-hands-on-deck mindset. In terms of generally advisable principles, government, business, private and public sector leaders can take proactive steps to protect an organization from AI related employment liability. First, regularly auditing an organization’s AI tools and use, proactively searching for any potential gaps or problems closer to point of inception. Second, implementing clear and effective training for HR and other stakeholders, ensuring understanding of applicable federal and state regulations and potential compliance risk. Third, maintaining human oversight as a guardrail and backstop against issues like algorithmic bias, hallucinations, etc. Fourth, staying informed- ensuring that leadership understands AI tools, policies, implementation, and application of assessment in order to effectively understand AI models, manage their use, reduce risks, and avoid unnecessary costs. Although far from exhaustive, these are steps on the path to a dynamic, strategic approach to AI governance and regulatory sustainability in the employment and hiring process, no doubt a necessity of today and the days ahead. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/the-intersection-of-artificial-intelligence-and-employment- https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/2025/04/to-ai-or-not-to-ai-the-use-of-ai-in-employment-decisions/ https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2025/11/ai-in-hiring-emerging-legal-developments-and-compliance-guidance-for-2026/ https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/year-ahead-2025-tech-talk-ai-regulations- https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/03/artificial-intelligence-in-hiring-diverging-federal-state- https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/2025/04/to-ai-or-not-to-ai-the-use-of-ai-in-employment- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/30/disabled-amazon-workers-discrimination

In this episode, associate editor Delaney Ferrer discusses the intersection between faith, pop culture, and environmental justice. Lately environmental justice has been framed as a new or controversial topic--especially when it intersects with race. But in this episode, Delaney challenges that narrative by exploring how environmental justice has been recognized for decades in our media and faith. Drawing on law, Catholic teachings, and pop culture references from The Jungle to Avatar and Star Wars, this episode examines how storytelling shapes our understanding of environmental harms and responsibility. This conversation aims to reframe environmental justice as not just a political trend, but as a longstanding moral and legal issue rooted in dignity, stewardship, and solidarity. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nsn4Sxy8r8 https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/25/us-louisianas-cancer-alley https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/care-for-creation

This week, associate editor Nicole Polisar revisits the 1865 military trial of Mary E. Surratt, the first woman executed by the United States government. Set in the immediate aftermath of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, the episode reconstructs the courtroom’s drama surrounding a civilian defendant tried by a military commission during a moment of national trauma. Nicole examines the prosecution’s theory of treasonable conspiracy, the defense’s constitutional challenge to military jurisdiction, and the role of circumstantial evidence in securing a death sentence. The episode explores how wartime fear reshaped the boundaries of due process, executive power, and civilian justice and why the legal questions raised by Mary Surratt’s execution continue to resonate in modern debates over emergency authority and the rule of law. If you're interested in this week's topic, please check out these resources: https://lincolnconspirators.com/the-trial/ https://andyreiter.com/wp-content/uploads/military-justice/us/Government%20Documents/United%20States%20-%201865%20-%20The%20Assassination%20of%20President%20Lincoln%20and%20the%20Trial%20of%20the%20Conspirators.pdf https://www.famous-trials.com/lincoln/2178-defenseofsurratt

In this week's episode, associate editor Addison Fouts takes listeners on an overview of Loyola’s comparative advocacy program in London. This includes what you can expect taking the class as well as Addison's experience studying abroad as a first generation college and law student. "This was my first time leaving the country and I have grown a lot as a person due to this trip." This episode details some of the notable things Addison learned in lectures as well as recommendations if you travel to London or get to study abroad. Addison goes through the differences between a barrister and solicitor, family law, criminal law, and health law comparisons from the US and UK. She encourages you all to get outside of your comfort zone and study abroad if the opportunity arises for you! If you are interested in this episode's topic and want to find out more please check out these resources: https://bowstreetmuseum.org.uk/about-us/history/ https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/ https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/the-bar/the-inns-of-court

This week the Podvocate and associate editor Caleb Stokes present a Double Feature Episode! The first half of this episode is a summary and exploration of an upcoming survey in development to be given out to law students at Loyola Chicago, while the second half of the episode is a comparative analysis of the three models states use regarding the legality of prostitution, and the impacts of each model on efforts to reduce Human Trafficking.

in this week's episode, associate editor Carter Pasternak, examines Louisiana v. Callais, a pending Supreme Court case placing the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause on a direct collision course. It explores the history and mechanics of gerrymandering and how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act functions as a remedial tool against vote dilution. The episode walks listeners through the case’s factual background, procedural history, lower-court rulings, and the arguments presented to the Supreme Court by both sides. It concludes by analyzing why the case matters nationally and what each possible outcome could mean for voting rights and redistricting going forward. If you're interested in the episode's topic please check out these resources to learn more: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/24-109?utm_source.com https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricting-majority-black-districts-ea09df430fa850d4eb7497ae1be9667d https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-reinstate-louisiana-voting-map-that-is-being-challenged-under-voting-rights-act/ https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-arguments-conclude-in-landmark-voting-rights-case

This week, associate editor Nicole Polisar revisits the 1936 Mary Astor custody trial, the Hollywood courtroom spectacle that turned a private diary into a national obsession. Set in Los Angeles at the height of the studio era, the episode reconstructs the drama of a movie star fighting her ex-husband, Dr. Franklyn Thorpe, for custody of their four-year-old daughter, Marylyn. As tabloids and subpoenas threaten to swallow the proceeding whole, the courtroom begins to resemble a public stage as much as a forum for justice. Nicole examines how “fitness” was argued and weaponized in a courtroom culture that treated a mother’s private relationships as evidence of parental unworthiness. The episode explores how media frenzy, moral judgment, and evidentiary battles transformed a child-welfare proceeding into reputational warfare. If you're interest in the episode's topic please check out these resources to learn more: https://archive.org/details/mystoryautobiogr00asto https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-aug-12-me-a2anniversary12-story.html

How serious were the January 2026 arrests of independent journalists, Don Lemon and Georgia Fort? In this episode Senior Editor Alyssa Pacheco reflects on the power of the press and historical attacks on its First Amendment protections to answer that question.

In this episode, senior editor Neha Alety provides a brief history of maternal health policy in the United States. She discusses how these policies have disproportionately affected low-income, vulnerable populations, and people of color. She ends the episode with a discussion on how we can advocate for more just policies as future lawyers.

“The Rule of Law and the American Experiment” was presented by the Seventh Circuit Bar Association and Loyola University Chicago Rule of Law institute on October 24, 2025, covering a litany of issues related to law in Trump’s America; this episode is a recording of “The Rule of Law, Peace, and National Security.” The panelists were: John C. Dehn, Associate Professor & Faculty Director, National Security and Civil Rights Program, Loyola University Chicago School of Law; Scott Carlson, Associate Executive Director of Global Programs, American Bar Association; Laura A. Dickinson, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School.

In this episode, Associate Editor Ashvini Kartik-Narayan explores history of digital surveillance in public benefits programs and how it has set the stage for data grabs under the Trump administration. Millions of Americans receiving SNAP and Social Security will have their personally identifiable information subject to data disclosures under the guise of “reducing fraud and waste” in welfare programs. Ashvini examines the ways that low-income communities of color have long been subject to surveillance, the legal strategies used to resist surveillance in the past, and how those strategies must evolve to meet the current threat of artificial intelligence.

In this week's episode, associate editor Adam Reed dives into the issues of the common law system. He discusses the main issues facing the average citizen when facing the common law legal system: complexity, accessibility, affordability, variability, and arbitrarity. He discusses the cases he recalls, especially from law school and how absurd they could be, while also discussing how to solve them. He proposes, at least in the hypothetical, an examination of the corpus juris civilis, as well as the Napoleonic code in order to see how these problems might be solved. If you're interested in this week's topic, check out this resource to learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_2E0RxVHH4&list=PLEb6sGT7oD8HLpPQ0N4UTmTtPlpXfJias

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/

This episode of the Podvocate will explore the often overlooked and underdiscussed pressures of law school, focusing on what shapes students’ mental health and well-being. From the pervasive culture of perfectionism and the relentless grind mentality to the emotional toll of legal education, we dive into how law students can be impacted by unspoken expectations. This episode also discusses the stigma surrounding mental health in law school and how some schools are already taking steps to help their students. Resources ABA Launches Pledge Campaign to Improve Mental Health and Well-Being of Lawyers, American Bar Association, September 10, 2018. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/09/aba-launches-pledge-campaign-to-improve-mental-health-and-well-b/ Raashi Sharma, Well-Being Series: Law Student Mental Health: An Open Dialogue, February 9, 2023, https://bostonbar.org/journal/law-student-mental-health-an-open-dialogue/ Priscilla Henson, Addiction and Substance Abuse in Lawyers: Statistics, June 21, 2024, https://americanaddictioncenters.org/workforce-addiction/white-collar/lawyers David Jaffe, Law Schools Should Take on Students’ Mental Health and Substance Use From Day One, American Bar Association, May 17, 2023, https://www.abajournal.com/voice/article/the-legal-profession-has-a-drinking-problem Jerome M. Organ et. al, Suffering in Silence: The Survey of Law Student Well-Being and the Reluctance of Law Students to Seek Help for Substance Use and Mental Health Concerns, 66 Journal of Legal Education 1 (2016) Katherine M. Younge, Understanding the Social and Cognitive Process in Law School that Creates Unhealthy Lawyers, 89 Fordham L. Rev. 11 (2021)

In this episode, I sit down with Samantha Reed, Esq., of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois to discuss the case of Kevin T. Singer, a convicted murderer who used Dungeons and Dragons to escape the gloom inherent to life in prison. Ms. Reed and I discuss the history of prisoner’s rights, the current landscape of prisoner’s rights, the Satanic Panic surrounding DnD, and the arguments proffered in Singer v. Raemisch. The case was heard before the 7th Circuit, and it was ultimately decided that depriving Mr. Singer of his ability to play DnD was not a violation of his First Amendment rights. Attached is a link to the decision itself, and the article about Texas Death Row inmates playing DnD that Ms. Reed referenced. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca7-07-03400 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/magazine/dungeons-dragons-death-row.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

This episode explores the evolving landscape of U.S. tariffs and their wide-reaching legal effects. It starts with a refresher on tariffs, who imposes them, and how maritime law—particularly the Jones Act—intersects with trade policy. Then we examine recent tariff developments and how these moves are impacting global trade, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical relations. It delves into the legal foundations of tariff authority, related litigation trends, and the business risks that come with shifting tariff policies. Finally, it looks ahead at possible future developments, emphasizing the continuing role of maritime law in shaping trade enforcement and dispute resolution. Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) – 46 U.S. Code § 55102 WhiteHouse.gov, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China, The White House, February 1, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ​Exec. Order No. 14,257, 90 Fed. Reg. [page number TBD] (Apr. 2, 2025). Senate Session – Remarks by Sen. Tim Kaine and Sen. Rand Paul regarding the vote to end the national emergency declaration, C-SPAN (Apr. 10, 2025), https://www.c-span.org/video/?Ma1yZjk1. Benoit et al., Trade Protection – What Impact on Jobs and Wages? Council on Economic Policies, December 23, 2022, . Grennes, Thomas, An Economic Analysis of the Jones Act, Mercatus Research, Mercatus Center George Mason University, 2017, 48 pages. . Hahn, Tariffs 101: What are they and how do they work? Oxford Economics, March 19, 2025, . Hamm, A., Trump’s steel tariffs, UNC affirmative action, and Maine’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, SCOTUSblog, December 3, 2021, 3:06p.m., . Siripurapu, A. et al., What are Tariffs? Council on Foreign Relations, last updated April 1, 2025, 5:36 p.m. EST, . Smith, M, The Impact of Trump’s Tariffs: A Comprehensive Analysis, CLA, March 11, 2025, https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/articles/25/the-impact-of-trumps-tariffs-a-comprehensive-analysis/ Smith, A. et al., Immediate Impacts, Risks, and Uncertain Future of President Trump’s Unprecedented Worldwide Tariffs, Gibson Dunn Client Alert, April 8, 2025, Thomas, M. et al., USTR Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors, Safe Passage – News and Views from Blank Rome Maritime and Mainbrace, Blank Rome LLP, March 7, 2025, 4 pages, . York, E., The Impact of Trade and Tariffs on the United States, Tax Foundation, June 27, 2018, . York, E., Trump Tariffs: The Economic Impact of the Trump Trade War, Tax Foundation, April 4, 2025, .

In the fourth and likely final episode of the series on NIL, associate editors Davey and Chris discuss new issues within the NIL space since their last episode. We break down the major points and discuss the issues of the House v NCAA proposed settlement, which is set to be ruled on, on April 7th, 2025. Additionally, we give updates on two smaller legal disputes. One is Diego Pavia’s lawsuit against the NCAA on eligibility and the other is Dartmouth Men’s Basketball team seeking to unionize. Thank you all for listening to the series and be sure to check out the previous episodes! Research & Sources: Proposed House Settlement NCAA appealing Pavia injunction The Dartmouth men’s basketball team ends its attempt to unionize Resources: Check out the prior NIL episodes in the series and by previous editors Schooled: The Price of College Sports

In this episode, Associate Editor Isabella Lund explores the differences between the legal systems in Germany and the United States. Our guest Matthias Baehre works as a judge in Stade, Germany. He walks us through his career, starting with law school in Germany and finishing with the trial process in Germany. Our discussion focuses on the use of lay judges versus a jury to deliver a verdict, as well as the pros and cons of being a judge in the United States versus Germany. Ask yourself, would you rather be a defendant in Germany or the United States? Would you rather become a lawyer in the United States or Germany? Research & Sources: https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/Justice https://howtogermany.com/bureaucracy/german-law-and-the-german-legal-system/ https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn2021/ContentDetail/EN/5/1 For a diagram of the German court system: https://www.germancivilprocedure.com/know-your-way-around-german-civil-courts/ Being a defense attorney in Germany: Crime and Guilt by Ferdinsnd Von Schirach

I think I’ve seen this film before, and I didn’t like the ending. In the first three months of his second term President Trump has embarked on an unprecedented campaign against the American justice system. Working through the history of the legal profession and its roots in the United States, Associate Editor Alyssa Pacheco draws parallels between the political climate of today and that of Germany during the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Adolf Hitler hoping to implore listeners to act. All in the name of democracy of course. Research & Sources:     https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/ Charles I. Lugosi, Reflections From Embassy Lakes, Florida: The Effective Teaching Of Criminal Law, 48 St. Louis U. L.J. 1350 (2000). https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109967829299924979 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/01/liz-cheney-blasts-trump-for-war-hawk-comment/75984766007/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/ https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/immigrants-and-crime https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-10-31/we-fact-checked-some-of-trumps-most-common-claims-on-immigration https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-statement-re-remarks-questioning-judicial-review/ https://www.actl.com/news/actl-condemns-elon-musks-call-for-an-immediate-wave-of-judicial-impeachments/ https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/politics/chilling-effect-trump-legal-establishment/index.html https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-statement-re-remarks-questioning-judicial-review/

Fictional legal shows are just fiction. Right? Let’s dive into the world of legal dramas and analyze three stories from the shows Suits and The Good Wife and the 1996 movie, Primal Fear. Together we will apply real legal principles, like contract law and the comparative negligence standard, to the fictional cases. Please note there are spoilers for the shows and movie! Research & Sources: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/073500050K2-1116.htm https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1981/52875-5.html https://casetext.com/case/poole-v-city-of-rolling-meadows-1 https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-principles-of-contract-law/ https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oral-contract.asp https://lawlibrarycollections.umn.edu/classic-cases-criminal-mnaghten-rule “Break Point.” Suits. Created by Aaron Korsh, Season 2, Episode 5, Universal Cable Productions, July 19, 2012. “Painkiller.” The Good Wife. Created by Robert King and Michelle King, Season 1, Episode 12, Scott Free Productions, January 12, 2010. Hoblit, G. (1996). Primal Fear. Rysher Entertainment.

This week Davey and Chris sit down with Lanston Tanyi and Coach Dave McGinnis to discuss payment in college athletics and its collateral effects. Lanston Tanyi is a 4L in the Weekend JD program also works as a marketing director for a national healthcare company. While attending Appalachian State University, Lanston was a four year starter for their football program. Lanston was one of the first members of what we now know as “the transfer portal” eventually leaving as a graduate and finishing his college career at Colorado State University. Lanston played professional football in the NFL for the Washington Commanders, Denver Broncos and in the CFL for the Montreal Allouttes. Coach Dave McGinnis is a radio analyst for the Tennessee Titans and a former coach with over four decades of experience. “Coach Mac” played college football for TCU before entering coaching. He spent a decade coaching in the college ranks before becoming the Linebackers coach of the Chicago Bears in 1986. Coach Mac went on to be the Defensive Coordinator of the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans. He served as Head Coach of the Arizona Cardinals from 2000-2003. Davey and Chris were lucky to sit down with these two guests and discuss life as a college football player as well as the ramifications of payment in college sports on the NCAA’s biggest cash cow. Research & Sources:   National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston 141 S.Ct. 2141, 594 U.S. 69, 210 L.Ed.2d 314 (2021) O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 802 F.3d 1049 (2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 277 (2016) Johnson v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 22-1223 (3d Cir. 2024)

In this part 2 episode of the Women in the Law series, Neha Alety sits down with Kelly Greening, associate general counsel at Lurie Children’s Hospital and former DePaul University College of Law graduate. Kelly discusses her experiences as a former lobbyist, fighting for reproductive health rights, and takes us through her career. We expand on the challenges that she faced as each stage of her career as a woman in the historically male dominated legal field and how she navigated those challenges. She looks back on what she wished she had known when she was a 20-year-old navigating the legal field and how her experiences have shaped her into the lawyer she is today. Research & Sources: Maureen Mulligan, Continuing Our Conversations on Gender Equity, American Bar Association, April 7, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publications/perspectives/2021/april/continuing-our-conversations-gender-equity/ Sarah Thomas, Creating Space at the Table: Succeeding as a Felae in the Still Male-Dominated Field of Law, ABA Journal, June 29, 2023, https://www.abajournal.com/voice/article/lowering-the-ladder-succeeding-as-a-female-in-the-still-male-dominated-field-of-law International Women’s Day: What Does the Legal Profession Look Like for Women in 2021?, Law Careers, March 8, 2021, https://www.lawcareers.net/Explore/Features/08032021-International-Womens-Day-what-does-the-legal-profession-look-like-for Jaline S. Fenwick, See Her; Hear Her: The Historical Evolution of Women in Law and Advocacy for the Path Ahead, American Bar Association, November 15, 2023, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2023-november/see-her-hear-her-historical-evolution-women-in-law/ Resources: ABA Women in the Profession Includes online toolkits and literature

This week Davey and Chris sit down with Will Boling and Emily Proud to discuss payment in college athletics and its collateral effects. Will Boling is a sports radio host on 104.5 the Zone in Nashville, TN as well as a play-by-play announcer for professional and collegiate track, women’s college basketball and college baseball. While attending the University of Tennessee, Will was a distance runner with the track team. Emily Proud is a sports reporter for the CBS Sports network. She covers college football, men's and women's college basketball as well as the NWSL and the WNBA. While attending Belmont University Emily was a member of the women’s soccer team. Davey and Chris were lucky to sit down and discuss their time as athletes in non-revenue programs as well as their reporting on the monumental shift in the college sports landscape that is Name Image and Likeness revenue. Research & Sources:   National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston 141 S.Ct. 2141, 594 U.S. 69, 210 L.Ed.2d 314 (2021) O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 802 F.3d 1049 (2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 277 (2016) Johnson v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 22-1223 (3d Cir. 2024)

Associate Editor Mary Bandstra explains the SAFE-T Act, Illinois’ law eliminating cash bail, that went into effect in 2023. Associate Editor Katie Dorsey interviews Assistant Public Defender Debra Cruz to get a boots-on-the-ground perspective on the Act’s practical implications. Illinois SAFE-T Act Full Text: https://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/101/101-0652.htm Cook County Court – Pretrial Fairness Act Data Dashboards: https://www.cookcountycourt.org/court-reports-statistics Brennan center for Justice – Bail Reform and Public Safety: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/bail-reform-and-public-safety Resources:   Loyola Chicago Law School’s Center for Criminal Justice: Tracking the Pretrial Fairness Act: https://loyolaccj.org/pretrial-fairness-act Cook County Public Defender’s Office – Fact and Fiction on the Pretrial Fairness Act: https://www.cookcountypublicdefender.org/news/illinois-historic-pretrial-fairness-act-fact-and-fiction Rowe v. Raoul: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/79db4d0e-4bed-4cd2-bec1-88fc1ba8b904/Rowe%20v.%20Raoul,%202023%20IL%20129248.pdf People v. Thomas: https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-first-appellate-district/2024/1-24-0479.html

Does the government owe us, American Citizens, anything? Associate Editor Alyssa Pacheco explores what the relationship between government and its people looks like, the role contract law plays in governing that relationship, and what happens when that contract is broken. Resources: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americas-broken-criminal-legal-system-contributes-to-wealth-inequality/ https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics#:~:text=On%20September%2023%2C%202024%2C%20the,crime%20incidents%20involving%2013%2C829%20offenses. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-israel-public-affairs-cmte/recipients?id=D000046963