Touro Law Review Podcast

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. 

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.        

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.    

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.

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 canno 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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

The Supreme Court continued its project of reshaping administrative law this term.  Perhaps its most widely discussed decision in this area was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court overruled the doctrine of Chevron deference.  How did the Chevron doctrine operate?  Why, after forty years, did the Supreme Court set it aside?  And what will judges do when interpreting regulatory statutes that are either ambiguous or silent on the question pending before the court?               DePaul College of Law Professor David Franklin discusses these questions on this Touro Law Review podcast with Associate Dean Rodger Citron.  Franklin clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, has taught Administrative Law and Constitutional Law for more than a decade, and recently wrote about the Loper Bright decision for Slate, see This Supreme Court has betrayed Antonin Scalia’s legacy. (slate.com).            

Long before he became a federal judge, even before he went to law school in the early 1970s, Michael Ponsor wrote fiction.  It was not until 2013, however, that Judge Ponsor published his first novel, The Hanging Judge.  In this podcast, Judge Ponsor discusses his passion for writing as well as his experiences as a lawyer and judge that inform his third published novel, Point of Order.    In his conversation with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Judge Ponsor discusses the demands and challenges of being a judge and how he presents them in his novels involving Judge David S. Norcross.  Among other things, Judge Ponsor says, it is necessary for a judge to “rule and roll” in order to do the job.  Judge Ponsor also talks about how his experience teaching in Kenya as a young man figures into Point of Order as well.    This podcast will be of interest to anyone who wishes to learn more about the relationship between law and literature.          

In Moore v. Harper, decided last year, the Supreme Court addressed the “independent state legislature theory.” In a case arising out of an election in North Carolina, proponents of the theory contended that North Carolina’s Supreme Court did not have the authority to review a legal claim that the state legislature had adopted an illegally gerrymandered congressional map. The Supreme Court rejected the theory by a 6-3 vote in Moore. In this Touro Law Review podcast, Nicholas Maggio, an attorney who has written about the independent state legislature theory, discusses the case – in particular, its relevance during an election year and its significance for understanding the current Supreme Court – with Associate Dean Rodger Citron.

Stephen Bright’s relentless pursuit of equal justice is at the center of Professor Robert Tsai’s most recent book. For nearly forty years, Bright led the Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit that provided legal aid to incarcerated people and worked to improve conditions within the justice system. Among other things, Bright argued four death penalty cases at the Supreme Court and won each of them. As Tsai discusses with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, the story of these four cases illustrate inequalities in the legal system and legal strategies for combatting them. The discussion illuminates how race, economics, and politics influence the operation of the criminal justice system when the stakes are at their highest – that is when the defendant’s life literally depends upon the outcome.

Professor Kennedy conducted an insightful interview with Professor Daniel Kiel, a distinguished law professor at the University of Memphis and author of the book "The Transition: Interpreting Justice from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas." This literary work seamlessly blends historical narratives, legal analysis, and literary elements, comprehensively exploring the Supreme Court justices' perspectives on educational inequalities and racial disparities—issues Professor Kiel has dedicated his career to addressing. Notably, Professor Kiel directed the acclaimed documentary "The Memphis 13," shedding light on students' groundbreaking efforts during the segregation era in Memphis. For further exploration, you can access the book and the documentary through the links below. The Transition: Interpreting Justice from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas: https://eastapt.wixsite.com/daniel-kiel The Memphis 13: http://www.thememphis13.com/

In 2023, Supreme Court justices made news not only for the cases decided but also for their personal conduct. As David Lat and Zach Shemtob noted in an article for The Atlantic, the news stories often involved “financial entanglements between justices and wealthy benefactors.” As Lat and Shemtob discuss with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, the intensity of the public response to the justices’ behavior is more noteworthy than theunderlying conduct. They attribute the strong reaction to our current political era, which is not only hyper-partisan but anti-elitist as well. Lat and Shemtob discuss their article, the Supreme Court’s adoption of an ethics code in late 2023, and how concerns over the justices' ethics relate to the current Supreme Court term in this Touro Law Review podcast.

This podcast features a discussion of law and literature with author David Guterson, author of The Final Case and the PEN/Faulkner Award-winning novel Snow Falling on Cedars.  Guterson discusses with Associate Dean Rodger Citron the inspirations for The Final Case – including the death of an adopted girl in a rural county in Washington State and the life of his father, an accomplished criminal defense attorney – and what he learned while immersing himself in criminal law and procedure to write the novel

Please join us for this week's episode featuring Lawyer and author Ray Brescia where he discusses his book Lawyer Nation. Professor Zablotsky hosts and the two discuss institutions, methodologies, history, and an analysis of dynamics in the legal system. In his book Lawyer Nation Brescia identifies six forces that represent the most significant challenges facing the legal profession today. Lawyer Nation gives a significant analysis and critique of the legal system but offers concrete ideas on how to fix it.

Please join us for a deep dive between Dean Burch and Dean Zakarin into the switch from the Universal Bar Examination (UBE) to the Next Gen Bar, rolling out in phases starting July 2026. Dean Burch discussed what is now tested, the new format, and gave tips on how students and schools can smoothly adjust to the change.

Few lawyers know who Martin Manton was.  Even fewer, if any, law students learn about Manton while in school.  That may change with the Hon. Gary Stein’s recent biography of Manton, Justice for Sale: Graft, Greed, and a Crooked Federal Judge in 1930s Gotham.  (See Justice for Sale: Graft, Greed, and a Crooked Federal Judge in 1930s Gotham: Stein, Gary: 9781493072569: Amazon.com: Books)   Judge Stein tells the history of Judge Manton’s rapid rise – President Woodrow Wilson appointed Manton, then 36-years old, to the federal district court in 1916, then elevated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit two years later.  As a judge, Manton continued to be involved in a number of businesses, including real estate ventures on which he had given mortgages.  During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Manton desperately needed money and turned to selling his office, repeatedly soliciting payments from lawyers and litigants arguing cases before him.  Judge Stein calculates that Manton received improper payments of about $823,000 – about $17 million today.  Ultimately, in 1939, Manton was publicly exposed.  This led to his resignation, prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment.           As Judge Stein discusses with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, the story of Manton’s corrupt conduct on the bench is an extraordinary tale.  Manton was friends with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, served on the Second Circuit with, among others, the Hon. Learned Hand, and nearly was appointed to the United States Supreme Court in the 1920s.  This may seem like ancient history, but Judge Stein’s book reminds us that judges – even federal judges – are human, subject to the same flaws and foibles as the rest of us.  That is a timely lesson that is still instructive today.      

Brief Summary: Cybercrime has become a topic of discussion in the last few years. In this Touro Law Review podcast, Nicole E. Osborne, an Associate at Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., speaks about her experience and daily life as a member of the firm’s Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Practice Group. Nicole Osborne began with her journey to this world. Her path was more untraditional and she was in the right spot at the right time. Nicole gives advice to any student that wants to find a job in this practice area to take any available courses in law school, write a paper on cybersecurity, or work as an intern in a firm that has such a department. Alternatively, she noted that there are a lot of traditional practice areas that lend themselves perfectly to cybersecurity such as health care law. Nicole tells us that this is a very unpredictable area because of the phone calls that can come in any second due to data breaches. Everyday is different and it is a very interdisciplinary area of law. Dean Zakarin then asked Nicole to specifically discuss data breaches– something Nicole deals with frequently and is very passionate about.

This Podcast featured Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks, where he discussed his role as a magistrate, his path to get there, and advice to practitioners. Judge Wicks began discussing his various roles and positions as an attorney prior to his judgeship. He first became acquainted with the federal courts when he clerked for the Honorable Judge Arthur Spatt. Judge Spatt had a large influence on him and told him to consider becoming a Judge. As Judge Wicks stated, the good things that Judge Spatt did on the bench made it a "calling" for me to become a Judge. Judge Wicks then spoke to the extremely thorough process of becoming a magistrate judge and the difference between his role as an Article I judge from that of an Article III judge. He stated the extensive application process, which consists of two panels, interviews, and an FBI investigation. Additionally, the Judge discussed what cases he personally presides over as well as the ability for certain cases to agree for him to take over the case instead of district court judge. The Judge also advised how to navigate discovery disputes, and discussed the reputations of lawyers and how fast those reputations are built in the courts and what battles attorneys should pick.

When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question,” he surely could not have anticipated all of the pending legal cases against former President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, here we are nearly two centuries later, with four criminal prosecutions and one civil case pending and another civil case likely to be filed soon against Trump.   Thane Rosenbaum, Distinguished University Professor at Touro University, joins us on the Touro Law Review Podcast to help make sense of the legal cases against Trump.  After describing the cases, Rosenbaum explains to Associate Dean Rodger Citron what he finds problematic about each one.  The conversation focuses on the four criminal cases:  the New York “hush money” case; the federal classified documents case in Florida; the federal January 6 case pending in Washington, D.C.; and the Georgia election interference case.   Brought to you by the Touro Law Review. 

This Podcast featured Associate Professor and Associate Dean TIffany C. Graham regarding her role on the New York State Advisory Committee. Professor Zablotsky moderated this podcast, where he asked Professor Graham questions about her role and work on the Committee, which led to a discussion of the racial disparities that black families face. Tiffany C. Graham is the Associate Dean for Diversity & Inclusion and Associate Professor of Law at Touro Law Center in Long Island, New York. Professor Graham primarily teaches in the areas of constitutional law and race and the law, but has also taught criminal procedure, law and sexuality, and torts. She has written and spoken nationally on topics broadly related to LGBTQ+ equality, including marriage equality, LGBTQ+ youth homelessness, conversion therapy, and the integration of LGBTQ+ communities in rural spaces. Her work has appeared in multiple journals, most recently in the Creighton Law Review and the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, and has been cited at various stages of appellate litigation. Professor Graham discusses her journey to academia, which occurred when she realized quickly private practice was not her passion but rather, to join a student environment. Professor Graham then dives into a deep discussion of the different committees she was part of and the issues she has worked on.

This Podcast featured Ashley C. Keller who represented the Plaintiff in a recent Supreme Court case, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023). Dean Rodger Citron moderated this podcast, where he asked Mr. Keller questions about his case, the Court's decision, and other constitutional issues that related. Mr. Keller is a founding partner of the firm Keller Postman LLC. He focuses on complex plaintiff side litigation and he is also a proud federalist society member. In this case, he defended a plaintiff regarding the plaintiff's right to sue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He felt very strongly about this case and only requested a dollar as his fee to represent the plaintiff. Mr. Keller knew he would get all the way to the Supreme Court with this case and long behold he did.

Lawyer and author Martin J. Siegel discusses his biography of the Hon. Irving R. Kaufman on this week’s Touro Law Review podcast. Kaufman is most well-known today for having presided over the Cold War espionage case of United States v. Rosenberg, in which Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, a married couple, were charged with conspiring to share atomic secrets with the Soviet Union, found guilty by the jury, and sentenced to death by Judge Kaufman in 1951. Two years later, after numerous appeals, the United States executed the Rosenbergs. Siegel’s biography shows that there was more to Kaufman’s life than the infamous Rosenberg trial. Kaufman, the son of Jewish immigrants, was able and ambitious. His appointment to the federal bench in 1949, at the age of 39, was an extraordinary accomplishment. No less interesting is that after President Kennedy appointed him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961, Kaufman became one of the more liberal judges on that court. Nonetheless, even today, the Rosenberg case casts a long shadow over Kaufman’s judicial legacy. As Siegel discusses with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, the author benefited from the cooperation of Kaufman’s family while writing the book, enabling him to shed light on the judge’s personal life. The podcast concludes with Siegel sharing his thoughts on the relevance of biography in understanding how judges decide cases and, accordingly, how the law develops through judicial decision-making."

On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, we are joined by the Honorable Sol Wachtler, former Chief of the New York State Court of Appeals. This podcast is moderated by Professor Lauren Wachtler. Judge Wachtler has had an exceptional career. Serving for many years in government, and as a justice of the New York State Supreme Court, and later elected to the New York Court of Appeals where he served first as an associate judge and then as its Chief over the course of 14 years.

On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast we are joined by guest moderator Professor Lynne Kramer and guest speaker Anthony LaPinta. Anthony LaPinta is one of the top criminal trial lawyers in the State of New York who served as one of the defense attorney's representing Michael Valva in the tragic Valva case in Suffolk County, New York. The podcast discussion is centered around the ability to represent unpopular defendants. Among many other things, Mr. LaPinta explains why he volunteered to represent Michael Valva and how he was able to defend him against charges relating to the death of his son.

On this Touro Law Review podcast, we are joined by John Belcaster, the General Counsel of MSCHF, a Brooklyn-based art collective. MSCHF (pronounced “mischief”) produces artworks that critique and comment on American culture. The podcast discussion with Belcaster focuses on Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, a trademark case currently pending before the Supreme Court.  As he explains, MSCHF filed an amicus brief (available here: MSCHF SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEF.indd.) in the Supreme Court that, among other things, asked the Justices and their law clerks to draw pictures – and thereby create art. The purpose of the brief, according to Belcaster, is to illuminate the issues raised by Jack Daniels Properties and to persuade the Court to take a broad view of what constitutes protected artistic expression.

This week on the Touro Law Review podcast we are joined by Lisa Gochman to talk about her experience arguing the case, Charles C. Apprendi Jr. v. New Jersey, in front of the highest court in this country -- The United States Supreme Court.

Please join us for the first podcast of the Spring 2023 semester with guest speaker Professor Michael Lewyn and Dean Citron. Dean Citron and Professor Lewyn discuss what we can expect for future bar exams and decisions to remove zoning questions from the bar exam.

This week's episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast features guest speaker Professor Lisa Pomerantz and our first student moderator Stephanie Stephenson. The two discuss, what Professor Pomerantz has termed, the Arbitration Paradox.

This week's episode of the Touro Law Review podcast features two guests, Patrick Fife and Ian Wilder, for a discussion on fair housing on Long Island. This podcast is moderated by Professor Peter Zablotsky.

Associate Dean Rodger D. Citron and Professor Patrick Connors from Albany Law School discuss the New York Court of Appeals and the recent changes within the New York Court of Appeals.

Associate Dean Rodger D. Citron and Eli Nachmany discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA. Among other things, the two discuss Mr. Nachmany's career and his thoughts on this recent case. We hope you enjoy this fascinating discussion.

Reyna Marder Gentin and Associate Dean Rodger D. Citron discuss Reyna Marder Gentin's career as a lawyer and a published author. In this conversation, Reyna Marder Gentin discusses her legal career as a public defender and an appellate lawyer. Also be sure to check out Reyna Marder Gentin's novel, Unreasonable Doubts!

Associate Dean Rodger D. Citron and Professor Jason Gillmer discuss Professor Gillmer's impressive publication which tells a story of the fascinating case, which preceded the Dred Scott decision, In Re Perkins.

Enjoy a discussion between Associate Dean Roger D. Citron and John Sexton, President Emeritus of New York University School of Law. The two discuss John Sexton's fascinating experiences during his clerkship for three judges, one of which was a Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Robin Peguero discusses his first published novel, With Prejudice; an unconventional legal thriller based on his own personal experiences as a prosecutor.

Professor Barry Friedman and Associate Dean Roger D. Citron explain the trajectory of the United States Supreme Court. Dean Citron and Barry Friedman discuss the storm of controversy around the Court that the public is picking up on.

Professor Thane Rosenbaum walks us through the most recent Supreme Court decisions. He also discusses what he thinks is the trajectory of the Court's future decisions.

Touro Law Review - Supreme Court Shadow Docket