Jeannie Suk Gersen

On today’s podcast, we’re excited to welcome back former Digging a Hole guest Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. We take a break from legal theory and indulge Feldman in a discussion about his new book, To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People. In this episode, which was adapted from a conversation between Feldman and Sam at Yale Law School, we dive into Feldman’s theory of Judaism as a theology of struggle, his taxonomy of Jewry, and his insistence that a relationship to Israel and contestation over Zionism is at the heart of what it means to be a Jew today. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine “She Pioneered Internet Fame, He Helped Draft a Constitution. Now They’re in Love” by Joseph Bernstein “Orthodox Paradox” by Noah Feldman “The Great Rupture in American Jewish Life” by Peter Beinart

Have you ever wondered about the legal history of the war on drugs? Even if you haven’t, we won’t mollycoddle you – this episode’s a trip. Our guest on today’s podcast is a scholar of constitutional law and information law known for really getting in the weeds and dunking what we think we know in an acid bath. We’re delighted to have joining us today the radical David Pozen, Charles Keller Beekman Professor at Columbia Law School, here to talk about his far out new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs. In this episode, we dive into the law, politics, and history of drug legalization and criminalization in the United States. We begin by Pozen giving an impassioned plea for how the war on drugs implicates racial justice, equal protection, federalism, and cruel and unusual punishment. Next, Sam dunks on history. Throughout the episode, we discuss the political economy of drugs (New York’s botched marijuana rollout) and generational divides (Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale”). We end by contemplating the brain-bending, otherworldly potential of the First Amendment to protect heightened brain states. Pour yourself a Coke and enjoy. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “Silver Blaze” by Arthur Conan Doyle “Beyond Carolene Products” by Bruce Ackerman The American Disease: Origins Of Narcotic Control by David Musto “The Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law” by Jesse Wegman The Age of Addiction: How Bad Habits Became Big Business by David Courtwright How to Change Your Mind by Michael Pollan

Listeners, law professors have been having a bit of a crisis. Those poor souls have been asking: is international law real? (No comment.) What about constitutional law – that has to be real, right? The New York Times ran an op-ed this week where con law professors more or less said, “no, but we’ll keep pretending as long as we can.” (As Calvin Trillin wrote in 1984, what if con law “really wasn’t the ideal place for a smart boy with a social conscience to go?”) Feeling down in the dumps, we brought on this week’s guest, David Boies Professor of Law at NYU Daryl Levinson, to dispel disenchantment through a discussion of his new book, Law for Leviathan: Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State. Levinson begins by assuring us that not only are international law and constitutional law both real, they’re real in the same way – as sub-species of a law for states. Next, we clarify that the Levinsonian law for states is a functionalist account of law and place it in both the Anglo-American and continental European international law traditions. Finally, we talk about how each of international and constitutional law relate to democracy – and what happens when a class of economic leviathans grows powerful enough to challenge the state. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India by Philip J. Stern “Private Supreme Courts” by David Fontana and David Schleicher “Separation of Parties, Not Powers” by Daryl Levinson and Richard Pildes

Welcome back, devoted listeners, and say hello to season eight of Digging a Hole, where we’ve got an extraordinarily stacked lineup just waiting in the wings. To make up for the cold, cold months where you had to get your legal theory fix from reading articles (boring) or attending faculty workshops (ugh), we’re kicking off the season with a mammoth episode about a mammoth book. Today’s guest is the former dean and current Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, and Co-Reporter for the American Law Institute, Robert Post, here to talk about Volume 10 of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States (aka the official biography of SCOTUS), The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921 to 1930. From the outset, Post sets the stage for his argument that the Taft Court and the 1920s are an important but underappreciated time in American legal history. We discuss how the Taft Court grows out of and evolves according to two social questions wrenching the nation – the First World War and Prohibition. Next, we talk about the different theories of sovereignty and democracy as represented by the different wings of the court, with Taft playing counterpoint to lionized jurists Brandeis and Holmes. Sam, angling for his dream job of author of Volume 14 of the Devise, peppers Post with questions about formalism, realism, and consequentialism. We’re not kidding when we say that’s only half the episode – but, listeners, the second half is a can’t-miss if you care about Taft the master administrator, judicial politics, and the power of the Supreme Court. We hope you enjoy. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings A Muted Fury: Populists, Progressives, and Labor Unions Confront the Courts, 1890-1937 by William G. Ross

Like George Santos’s tenure in Washington and Tim Scott’s rousing presidential campaign, all good things must come to an end, and so we wave goodbye to season seven of Digging a Hole. Our last guest of this season needs no introduction: according to our team of in-house scientists, if you stacked a penny for each citation he’s received, the tower of pennies would reach almost 1,000 feet high (which, frankly, is not as tall as our scientists expected but is taller than any other scholar’s penny tower). That’s right – our guest today is an author of a best-selling book about Star Wars, the former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and current Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School: Cass Sunstein, here to talk about his new book, How to Interpret the Constitution. We begin by laying out the thesis of the book: that we must have a theory of interpreting the Constitution that comes from outside the Constitution, and that we should choose the interpretive theory that makes our nation the best off. That simple? Sam and David don’t think so, and we discuss what it means to make our nation better off, why we need to choose an interpretive theory in the first place, and how we might revise the thesis on a more institutional view. Next, we look at judicial politics and restraint through the specter that haunts our podcast, James Bradley Thayer. And finally, we get to the bottom of Sunstein’s predictive judgments about the future of constitutional interpretation and American democracy. See you next year. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “Blasphemy and the Original Meaning of the First Amendment” “The Forum of Principle” by Ronald Dworkin “Efficiency vs. Welfare in Benefit-Cost Analysis: The Case of Government Funding” by Zachary Liscow and Cass Sunstein

It’s the last month of the year and soon (but not yet!), it’ll be the last podcast of the season. We had a lot of people write in about our last episode and so this Christmas, on behalf of all of you, we’ll ask Santa for more Digging a Hole. But before we leave out some milk and cookies, we’ve still got some great episodes for you. Today, we’ve got a pre-recorded episode that – can you believe it – couldn’t be aired for contracts (?!) reasons. But the embargo has been lifted! And here on the pod to talk about no less than a prince of free trade is Jennifer Burns, Associate Professor of History at Stanford University, discussing her new book, Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative. David and Sam start off by making Burns defend the subtitle of the book – was Friedman really the last conservative? Then we discuss the breadth of Friedman’s life and the breadth of Burns’s book, which travels the terrain of the intellectual history of economics to the study of Friedman as libertarian and television celebrity. We get deep into the debate between Keynesianism and monetarism – no math required, but make sure you’ve done your macro readings. Sam wants to know if the book is too easy on Friedman, especially his involvement in Chile. David wants to know if Friedman surrounded himself by sycophants to duck debates. And amidst all of that, Burns makes the case for Friedman as an underappreciated economic thinker who might be right about charter schools. Yes, we know that’s a lot. We hope you enjoy. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “The Mighty Wurlitzer Plays On” by Tim Barker

Listeners – our apologies. We’ve given you interesting topic after interesting topic, distinguished guest after distinguished guest. But we’ve strayed from the promise of the podcast, which is legal theory, and legal theory means arguing ad nauseam about whether we’re positivists or normativists. For a recent intervention in that debate, we’re delighted to bring you today’s guest, William Baude, the Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School and a member of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, to discuss his 2023 Scalia Lecture at Harvard Law School, “Beyond Textualism?”. We recommend you give the paper a skim before listening – Sam and David don’t waste any time getting into it on this episode. David presses Baude on the relationship between textualism and democracy while Sam is skeptical that Baude’s project is properly textualist at all. Next, we try to make sense of how the law-policy distinction maps onto the common law and the so-called general law past and present. Our tour continues to statutory interpretation before we get to the normativist-positivist debate (or: what’s the difference between Will Baude and Adrian Vermeule?). We end by discussing Baude’s recent foray into celebrity and whether the Constitution bars Donald Trump from running for president. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings A Matter of Interpretation by Antonin Scalia “Finding Law” by Stephen Sachs “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” by Will Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs Legalism by Judith Shklar “The ‘Common-Good’ Manifesto” by Will Baude and Stephen Sachs “The Real Enemies of Democracy” by Will Baude

Squarely in the heart of the Trump administration, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt published a book titled How Democracies Die which proved enormously popular. Celebrities read it. Obama read it. Most people you know probably pretended to have read it. Five years later, Levitsky and Ziblatt are back with a sequel of sorts, arguing that in the United States, democracy might never have been fully alive in the first place, strangled in the cradle by our very own constitution. To explain how their thinking has changed since How Democracies Die and discuss the new book, Tyranny of the Minority, we’re thrilled to have on today’s podcast Daniel Ziblatt, Eaton Professor of Government at Harvard University and director of the Transformations of Democracy group at Berlin's Social Science Center. In this episode, we poke around into all of the different ways the United States privileges minoritarian politics. Ziblatt explains that a major contribution of Tyranny of the Minority is showing how regular politics interact with our constitution’s minoritarianism to create a particularly potent anti-democratic danger for the United States. We discuss the legislative advantage minorities have in the U.S. thanks to our love of holding onto grand old traditions like the filibuster and what that means for statutory interpretation. Democratic backsliding, the advantages of party politics, papal smoke and mirrors–it’s all in there. We hope you enjoy. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment by Brad Snyder “Inside or Outside the System?” by Eric Posner and Adrian Vermuele After Misogyny: How the Law Fails Women and What to Do about It by Julie Suk The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy by Joseph Fishkin and William Forbath “The Insulation of Local Governance from Black Electoral Power: Northern Cities and the Great Migration” by Jacob Grumbach, Robert Mickey, and Daniel Ziblatt

As the Supreme Court moves forward with its administrative state agenda, we thought we’d get in on the action and make sure we understand what exactly that agenda even is. Lucky for us, we’ve got some friends who can shed light on that matter. On today’s episode, we’re joined by Emma Kaufman, Professor of Law at New York University Law School, to discuss her paper, co-authored with previous pod guest Adam Cox, “The Adjudicative State.” In this episode, we talk about the administrative state as a neglected site of adjudication and agency adjudication as a neglected site of administration. First, Professor Kaufman explains how her past research on immigration helped her identify and break through these blind spots. Next, we talk about how best to achieve equal justice under the law. Should we follow the legal academy, and half the op-eds in the New York Times, and leave politics out of courts? Or should we politicize justice entirely? (It turns out politicizing administration is complicated anyway!) Finally, Professor Kaufman leaves us with a bit of a cliff-hanger – stay tuned for her history of private prosecution and tune in to find out how it related to the rest of the topics on today’s pod. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “1930s Redux: The Administrative State Under Siege” by Gillian Metzger

After a long summer vacation, we’re thrilled to be back for season seven of Digging a Hole! Just a couple of weeks ago we were baking; now we’re surviving storm after storm, quivering and quaking. Climate change, huh? Here on the pod to discuss their forthcoming paper on how environmental law can help get us out of our existential crisis, “The Greens' Dilemma: Building Tomorrow's Climate Infrastructure Today” are J.B. Ruhl, the David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair in Law at Vanderbilt Law School, and Jim Salzman, the Donald Bren Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law at the UCLA School of Law. What is the Greens’ Dilemma – and is it even a dilemma exactly? Sam and David have their doubts, but Professors Ruhl and Salzman lay out what they think the dilemma that environmentalists face is, why it’s a dilemma, and their proposed solution to it. Professors Ruhl and Salzman discuss coalition building for green infrastructure and why they might be able to get both progressives and conservatives on board. Is a rapid transition to clean energy and negative emissions compatible with environmental justice (EJ)? Our guests answer with an emphatic yes but ask you, our argumentative listeners, to engage and disagree. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “Samuel Moyn Can’t Stop Blaming Trumpism on Liberals” by Jonathan Chait Mine!: How the Hidden Rules of Ownership Control Our Lives by Michael Heller and Jim Salzman “What Happens When the Green New Deal Meets the Old Green Laws?” by J.B. Ruhl and Jim Salzman Public Citizens: The Attack on Big Government and the Remaking of American Liberalism by Paul Sabin