Free Daily Podcast Summary
Stanford Legal: Daily Summaries Delivered
by Stanford Law School
Law touches most aspects of life. Here to help make sense of it is the Stanford Legal podcast, where we look at the cases, questions, conflicts, and legal stories that affect us all every day. Pam Karlan studies and teaches a range of constitutional law-related courses with a special focus on what is known as the “law of democracy,”—the law that regulates voting, elections, and the political process. She served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission, an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and (twice) as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. She also co-directs the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, which represents real clients before the highest court in the country, working on important cases including representing Edith Windsor in the landmark case striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Donald Zarda in a case where the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBT individuals against discrimination in employment. She has argued before the Court ten times. And Rich Ford’s teaching and writing look at the relationship between law and equality, cities and urban development, popular culture and everyday life. He teaches local government law, employment discrimination, and the often-misunderstood critical race theory. He studied with and advised governments around the world on questions of equality law, lectured at places like the Sorbonne in Paris on the relationship of law and popular culture, served as a commissioner for the San Francisco Housing Commission, and worked with cities on how to manage neighborhood change and volatile real estate markets. He writes about law and popular culture for lawyers, academics, and popular audiences. His latest book is Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History, a legal history of the rules and laws that influence what we wear.
Latest Episodes
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
- Today31 min
Prediction Markets: Gambling on Future?
Stanford’s Joe Grundfest discusses the reach of prediction markets, the risks of trading on inside information, and the legal battle over whether states or the federal government get to regulate them.----Prediction markets allow people to wager on almost anything, including a game’s winner, a player’s stat line, an election, and the timing of a military operation. Some participants may have inside information, while others may be in a position to influence the very outcomes they are betting on.Stanford Law professor emeritus Joe Grundfest, JD ’78, a senior faculty member with the Rock Center for Corporate Governance and a former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, joins Pam Karlan to discuss how prediction markets work and where they go wrong. Grundfest explains when using information to place a bet becomes illegal, and why bettors on platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket who assume they can stay hidden may be easier to identify than they think.At the center of the legal fight is whether contracts on these platforms are financial products under federal oversight or sports betting that states can regulate or ban. With federal appeals courts split, Grundfest predicts the Supreme Court will take up the question, and its answer could determine who sets the rules. Links:Joseph Grundfest >>> Stanford Law School page“Bets on Polymarket are getting so accurate they’re raising red flags” >>> Stanford Law School pagePrediction Markets are Surging – Here’s What You Need to Know >>> Stanford Law School pageArthur Rock’s Intel Memo >>> Stanford Law School pageArthur Rock on the Early Venture Capital Decisions That Sparked Decades of Innovation >>> Stanford Law School pageLessons Not Learned-The Derivatives Market and Continued Risks: A Conversation with Brooksley E. Born and Joseph A. Grundfest >>> Stanford Law School pageJoseph Grundfest Interviews Charles T. Munger >>> Stanford Law School page Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: Introduction A question that may reach the Supreme Court How prediction markets work vs. sports betting Betting on anything Prop bets and gamification Insider information and the Venezuela Contract Markets that change reality: Hawthorne and Heisenberg Manipulation: Terry Rozier and wildfire bets Gambling addiction and prop bets Who gets to regulate? Kalshi, the CFTC, and “swap” From hogs and corn to swaps: What the CFTC rRegulates The circuit split and the likely Supreme Court grant Can the CFTC actually regulate this?</
- 1 weeks ago25 min
Best of Stanford Legal: Should the Public Own a Piece of AI?
Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz discuss their proposal to require leading AI firms to pay taxes in equity, reshaping how the gains from AI are distributed----Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the economy, but two Stanford Law alumni argue that existing tax frameworks are failing to capture—or fairly distribute—the value it generates. Jeremy Bearer-Friend, JD '14, a professor at George Washington University Law School, and Sarah Polcz, JSM '12, JSD '20, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, join co-host Professor Richard Thompson Ford to discuss a proposal that would require leading AI companies to pay a portion of their taxes in equity rather than cash, with those shares placed into a public trust, and their work with U.S. Senate members to make this happen. The conversation explores a central question: If AI was built on vast amounts of human-generated text, images, and creative work, who is entitled to share in the wealth it produces? Bearer-Friend and Polcz connect their proposal to broader concerns about wealth concentration and whether the gains from AI will flow to a narrow class of tech executives and investors—or to the public at large. The episode also examines how an equity-based tax could work in practice, including questions of governance, political insulation, and the mechanics of a sovereign wealth fund, and what it would mean to give the public a direct stake in the companies shaping the future of artificial intelligence. Links:Jeremy Bearer-Friend >>> GW Law School pageSarah Polcz >>> UC Davis School of Law page“Sharing the Algorithm: The Tax Solution to Generative AI” >>> Columbia Journal of Tax Law pageAmerican AI Wealth Fund Bill >>> PDF“Everyone Wants to Tax A.I. The Big Disagreement: How?” >>> NY Times DealBook page“Don’t laugh off Bernie Sanders’ communist AI-heist attempt — young voters are falling for it” >>> New York Post pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X A Tax Paid in Stock IP, Inequality, and the AI Boom Why the Public Deserves an Equity Stake How the Tax Would Actually Work—Stock, Rates, and Governance Sanders, Trump, and a Race to Co-opt the Idea Objections, Safeguards, and the Road Ahead Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
- 2 weeks ago29 min
When Federal Agents Came to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Door
Stanford’s David Sklansky discusses the search of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home, the Justice Department’s election-timing rules, and what courts can do when prosecutions are challenged as retaliatory.----Federal agents arrived at U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar’s door on October 12 and spent hours searching her home under a warrant a judge had approved. The search came three weeks before Election Day, and the Justice Department has a formal regulation against timing investigative actions to influence an election. Was the timing a coincidence, and were the department’s usual safeguards followed?Stanford Law professor David Sklansky, a former federal prosecutor and faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, joins Pam Karlan to discuss the search and the White House’s role in criminal investigations. Sklansky and Karlan discuss the Justice Department’s rules about investigations close to an election, including one that has never been written down. Sklansky revisits a well-known warning from former attorney general Robert Jackson about the danger of starting with a person and then looking for a crime to charge. He also explains the added constitutional protections that apply when the home of a member of Congress is searched. They look at how a judge decides whether to approve a search warrant, and why a person can’t argue that a prosecution is retaliatory until charges have actually been filed.Links:David Sklansky >>> Stanford Law School pageCriminal Justice in Divided America >>> Stanford Law School pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: Introduction The Raid on Representative Ilhan Omar's Home How Did the Government Get a Warrant? Three DOJ Policies Implicated by the Timing Is There Still a Public Integrity Section? The Unwritten 60/90 Day Rule What Could They Be Looking For? The Speech or Debate Clause and Congressional Searches Prosecuting Without Political Interference No White House Contact on Criminal Cases From Nixon to a DOJ "Inside the White House" Politicized Pleadings in Civil and Election Litigation Edward Levi's Post-Watergate Legacy Robert Jackson's Famous Speech on Prosecutors Trump's Rhetoric About Omar and Somali Americans Is the Law Equipped for Vindictive Prosecutions? The Gap: No Remedy at the Investigation Stage Conclusion Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
- 3 weeks ago33 min
Best of Stanford Legal: What Stands Between Voters and the Ballot?
The ACLU’s Sophia Lin Lakin discusses voting access and the redistricting battles shaping political power----Sophia Lin Lakin, JD ’11 (MS ’04, BA ’02), director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, challenges the stated premises behind many current voting restrictions, including claims about widespread non-citizen voting. “If we’re worried about the integrity of our elections,” she tells Stanford Law professor and host Pam Karlan, “we should be worried about making sure that more people are participating in our elections and not chasing a fantasy.”That concern—how long-standing efforts to restrict voting access can make it harder for eligible voters to participate—runs through the episode, which was recorded shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which had created a second majority-Black district, holding that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision could make it harder to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge maps that dilute minority voting strength.Lakin and Karlan discuss what is at stake when access to the ballot becomes harder and the rules for translating votes into political power begin to shift. Their conversation focuses on proof-of-citizenship requirements, mail ballots, voter roll purges, and redistricting battles, offering a timely look at the legal fights shaping who can vote, whose ballots count, and whether communities can elect representatives of their choice. Links:Sophia Lin Lakin >>> ACLU pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X The Three Buckets of Voting Rights Voter Roll Surveillance The Non-Citizen Voting Myth and the Dangers of Faulty Databases Citizenship Documentation Requirements Mail Voting Rules and the Materiality Provision Section Two of the Voting Rights Act and Redistricting Battles Race, Politics, and the Future of Fair Maps Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
- 4 weeks ago33 min
The Court Records We're Not Allowed to See
A sweeping Stanford Law study reveals how routinely federal courts seal records, sometimes concealing information with profound implications for public health and safety.----Evidence of dangerous drugs, defective products, and corporate misconduct is often hidden from public view through sealed court records. And federal judges are granting requests to seal records at an astonishing rate, often without applying the proper legal standard, according to the largest-ever study of the issue.Stanford Law professors Nora Freeman Engstrom, JD ’02, and David Freeman Engstrom, JD ’02, co-directors of the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, join Pam Karlan to discuss their findings. Their research reveals that roughly 90 percent of sealing requests are granted, about three-quarters go unopposed, and judges frequently fail to cite any legal standard at all.Why is secrecy so pervasive in a justice system built on public access? The Engstroms explain how the incentives of litigants, lawyers, and judges can leave no one looking out for the public's right to know. They also discuss their push for a new federal sealing rule and why, with civil trials increasingly rare, access to court records is more important than ever.Links:Nora Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School pageDavid Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School page“[Sealed Document]: An Empirical Study of Sealing Orders in the Federal Courts” >>> Stanford Law School page“Millions Face Court Alone. California Can Change That.” >>> Stanford Law School pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Introduction What does it mean to seal a document? What should be sealed, and sealing vs. redaction Catch-22 and Judge Breyer’s redacted opinion How the study was done: Two million dockets and a machine learning pipeline The wrong standard (or no standard at all) Real-world consequences: Sealing and hidden public health hazards “Shadow consent”: Why sealing motions go unopposed No constituency for transparency Can the press be the fail-safe? (It’s a myth) Proposed fixes: Intervention tools and a Rhode Center staff attorney Law on the books vs. law in action: A rule of law problem Why litigation transparency matters: Regulatory, procedural, and democratic work The vanishing trial and why the papers matter Cause for optimism? Prospects for rulemaking Where to draw the line: Protective orders vs. sealing standards Rules vs. standards: What should always be sealed? Closing thoughts and where to find the article Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
- Oct 1, 202632 min
Dismantling Environmental Law
Deborah Sivas discusses the recent rollback of environmental laws, calls to streamline environmental review to speed up development, and the role communities should play in decisions about what gets built. ---As the push to build more infrastructure gains attention, so does debate over the role of environmental protections and public participation. How can communities have a voice in development while still allowing needed projects to move forward?Stanford's Deborah Sivas, JD ’87, environmental law expert and co-director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, joins Pam Karlan to discuss the “climate abundance” movement and its implications for environmental law. Sivas examines whether changes to environmental permitting would address the challenges of building new infrastructure and how communities can have a meaningful say in those decisions. “It’s not durable if you don’t have a population to support it,” she says. “If people can see it as a win-win coming into their communities in a way that benefits them as well as larger policy goals, to me, that’s the right way forward—not disenfranchising them.”Sivas and Karlan discuss how environmental law is evolving amid new policy and legal developments, including the current administration’s push for expanded fossil fuel development, changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a proposal to open some of Alaska’s last old-growth forests to logging. Links:Deborah A. Sivas >>> Stanford Law School pageEndangered Species Act’s “harm” rule, explained >>> Stanford Law School pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Introduction and welcoming Debbie Sivas What is "climate abundance"? Deregulation for fossil fuels, not clean energy Why the grid really isn't being built Killing wind projects NEPA, the Supreme Court, and citizen suits Courts vs. agencies: a legal whiplash Opening Alaska's roadless forests to logging A "concrete proposal" for environmental democracy The national and global collective action problem Novel legal tools: IEEPA, the Alien Enemies Act, and the Defense Production Act Citizen suits' achilles' heel Training the next generation of environmental lawyers Clinic spotlight: Northern Chumash Tribal Council Closing thoughts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
- Sep 18, 202630 min
U.S. Elections Under Pressure from White House
Nate Persily joins Pam Karlan to discuss efforts to change the rules governing the 2026 elections and the legal battles over how those changes would affect voting. ---As the push to build more infrastructure gains attention, so does debate over the role of environmental protections and public participation. How can communities have a voice in development while still allowing needed projects to move forward?As the 2026 elections approach, questions about how Americans vote are increasingly becoming questions for the courts. Disputes over redistricting, mail-in voting, and how elections are run are raising broader questions about tensions between states and a federal government for control over who sets the rules and when they can be changed. Stanford's Nate Persily, JD ’98, a leading expert on election law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss the legal and constitutional questions surrounding elections. Persily and Karlan discuss Missouri’s effort to redraw its congressional districts in the middle of an election cycle, the current administration’s efforts to change mail voting rules through the U.S. Postal Service, and the Supreme Court’s handling of election disputes. They also look ahead to the 2030 census, including questions about citizenship and who should be counted, and consider the broader consequences when election rules remain unsettled as voting gets underway.Links:Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law School pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Introduction Setting up today's two topics Missouri's redistricting battle explained The Supreme Court sides with the Missouri Supreme Court Two separate Supreme Court interventions Why this moment is unprecedented The rise of one-party congressional delegations Is there a way out? A preview: the 2030 census fight Shifting to how Americans actually vote Trump's executive order on mail voting The Postal Service's ballot-matching portal Envelope errors and a scramble before Election Day Round one at the Supreme Court: too soon to sue Round two: now it's "too late" The Postal Service's outsized role in elections The Purcell principle and last-minute chaos A fracturing Supreme Court on election law "Suppression through chaos" Closing Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
- Sep 3, 202627 min
Who Fills In When Federal Jobs Are Vacant?
Stanford’s Anne Joseph O’Connell examines who can step in when a top federal position is vacant and what recent court decisions could mean for how those positions are filled. ---- When a top federal position is vacant, someone still has to run the office. But who gets to step in, and what powers can they exercise while the position remains unfilled? Those questions are at the center of recent legal disputes over how the federal government operates when permanent officials are not yet in place. In this episode, Stanford Law School Professor Anne Joseph O’Connell, a leading scholar of administrative law and the federal bureaucracy, joins host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss the rules governing temporary officials and the way federal agencies are organized and staffed. O’Connell and Karlan examine recent disputes over U.S. attorneys and what happens when the usual process for putting a permanent leader in place does not happen quickly. They discuss how courts have interpreted the rules for temporary officials and what those decisions could mean for other federal agencies and future administrations. The conversation also considers how much authority the president has over the people who work for him and where the law draws the line. Links: Anne Joseph O'Connell >>> Stanford Law School page Pulte’s Appointment Shows Flaws in the Vacancies Act >>> Stanford Law School page Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Strategy of Picking U.S. Attorneys >>> Stanford Law School page Can the President Appoint Principal Officers Without the Senate? >>> Lawfare page Bureaucracy’s Boundaries >>> Lawfare page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Welcome to Anne Joseph O'Connell What "Actings" are, and why they matter The U.S. Attorney job, explained Three ways to fill a vacant U.S. Attorney seat The courts say no to post-vacancy "first assistants" Ripple effects across the federal government Does this undercut the Unitary Executive? A legislative fix, and the delegation workaround Circuit courts shut down delegation Trump v. Slaughter and the power to fire The Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights Where's the line on presidential removal power? Closing thoughts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Get Stanford Legal summaries in your inbox
Free AI-powered daily recaps. Key takeaways, quotes, and mentions — in a 5-minute read.
Get Free Summaries →Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
You Might Also Like
Listeners also like.
AI Sidebar
Experts discuss AI’s impact on law, business, and society, exploring accountability, regulation, and the future of legal practice.
American Law Cafe
Breaks down core legal concepts, landmark cases, and doctrines in clear, accessible discussions for law students and legal enthusiasts.
Is This Really Legal?
A legal expert breaks down current events and constitutional issues to clarify what’s actually allowed under U.S. law.
The Lawfare Podcast
Discussions with experts on national security, law, and policy covering foreign policy, intelligence, cybersecurity, and governance.
The Lawfare Podcast: Patreon Edition
Experts and policymakers discuss national security, law, and policy issues including foreign policy, intelligence, and cybersecurity.
Scaling Laws
Experts analyze AI policy, law, and governance through interviews and breaking news analysis.
Bloomberg Law
Legal analysis from prominent attorneys and scholars on current cases and news-shaping issues, hosted by June Grasso.
Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer
Three legal experts analyze everyday topics through a legal lens, exploring how law shapes common experiences and cultural phenomena.
Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast
A podcast discussing legal changes and decisions impacting public agencies.
The Animal Law Podcast
Discusses animal law cases and legal developments with attorneys, scholars, and advocates.
Democracy Decoded
Analyzes constitutional issues in American democracy, including voting rights, presidential power, and checks and balances, through expert discussions.
Law and Chaos
Legal journalists analyze pivotal courtroom cases and their impact on American democracy.
About Stanford Legal
Law touches most aspects of life. Here to help make sense of it is the Stanford Legal podcast, where we look at the cases, questions, conflicts, and legal stories that affect us all every day. Pam Karlan studies and teaches a range of constitutional law-related courses with a special focus on what is known as the “law of democracy,”—the law that regulates voting, elections, and the political process. She served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission, an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and (twice) as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. She also co-directs the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, which represents real clients before the highest court in the country, working on important cases including representing Edith Windsor in the landmark case striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Donald Zarda in a case where the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBT individuals against discrimination in employment. She has argued before the Court ten times. And Rich Ford’s teaching and writing look at the relationship between law and equality, cities and urban development, popular culture and everyday life. He teaches local government law, employment discrimination, and the often-misunderstood critical race theory. He studied with and advised governments around the world on questions of equality law, lectured at places like the Sorbonne in Paris on the relationship of law and popular culture, served as a commissioner for the San Francisco Housing Commission, and worked with cities on how to manage neighborhood change and volatile real estate markets. He writes about law and popular culture for lawyers, academics, and popular audiences. His latest book is Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History, a legal history of the rules and laws that influence what we wear.
Customized Recaps
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Straight to Your Inbox
Get key takeaways from Stanford Legal in a 5-minute read.
Save Hours Every Week
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Podzilla's Stanford Legal daily summary?
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of Stanford Legal as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
How does the Stanford Legal podcast summary work?
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
Is this an official Stanford Legal product?
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by Stanford Law School.
Can I get summaries of other podcasts too?
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts, any in the catalog. Basic raises that to 15, Pro to 40 and Max to 100. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
How often does Stanford Legal release new episodes?
Stanford Legal publishes weekly. Our AI generates a summary within hours of each new episode.
What topics does Stanford Legal cover?
Stanford Legal covers topics including News, Government, Commentary, Culture, Society & Culture. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Start getting Stanford Legal summaries tomorrow morning.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.