Media Mentions

From greenhouse gas emissions controls to offshore drilling, the Trump administration has yet to complete a number of high-profile regulatory changes the president has promised. Regulatory experts are closely tracking forthcoming final and draft rules and guidance documents in the second half of the presidential term. "There are a lot of the things we expect to see relatively soon," said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School who works on Harvard's Regulatory Rollback Tracker. She and Caitlin McCoy, a climate, clean air and energy fellow at Harvard Law School, and other regulatory experts flagged half a dozen actions to keep an eye on as agencies push to complete regulatory rollbacks. These actions could be made public in the coming weeks and months, based on deadlines projected by agencies, and the dates the rules have gone to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review, a key step toward completing the regulatory process.

... After reading the Mueller report, they say, Congress has no option but to fulfill its obligation and impeach Trump. ...  But this view misunderstands impeachment entirely. ... Harvard Law School’s Noah Feldman points out that neither history nor the framers’ intent yields clear lessons on the topic. “It’s quite possible that many founders would have supported impeachment for serious substantive matters like the usurpation of power by the president. By that standard, would [Abraham] Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, FDR’s internment of the Japanese Americans or [Lyndon] Johnson’s massive expansion of the Vietnam War all have been impeachable offenses? Possibly.”

US President Donald Trump is refusing to cooperate with several committees in the House of Representatives that have launched investigations of his presidency and business dealings, setting the stage for a legal confrontation that is likely to land in the US Supreme Court. ... "Certainly, with respect to the most important of the witnesses that the House Judiciary Committee is trying to bring before the public, and that is Don McGahn, executive privilege was obviously waived and executive privilege has no application in most of the other instances," said Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School who has been a vocal critic of Trump.

With its unique blend of music, dance and history lesson, the musical “Hamilton” proved to be something new and innovative for the stage. Now the team behind that mega-hit has created “Hamilton: The Exhibition,” touted as something else new and innovative. ... But does the general public want more Hamilton? That’s the question that will be answered as the exhibit makes its debut in Chicago. ... To bring more depth and an academic accuracy to the museum-quality exhibit, Yale University historian Joanne Freeman and Harvard law professor and historian Annette Gordon-Reed served as consultants.

A small but important trail of refugees fleeing the Nazis took an unusual detour through China. A new exhibit in Brooklyn marks the journey. ... Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor, a leading constitutional expert and an official in President Barack Obama’s Justice Department, also credited his direction in life partly to his years in Shanghai. These were very early years — he was born there in 1941 and left at age 6. His father, who as a young man had become an American citizen, was interned, he said, and young Larry recognized the injustice. “I thought, My father didn’t do anything wrong — why should he be in this place?”

Attorney General Maura Healey on Thursday blasted the federal indictment of a state district court judge on obstruction charges for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant defendant evade a federal immigration officer last year in Newton District Court. ... Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who now teaches at Harvard Law School and who last year published a Globe op-ed defending Joseph after the story broke, was firmly in Healey’s camp Thursday. In a telephone interview, Gertner called Lelling’s decision to seek criminal charges against a state court judge an act of “grandstanding.” “The notion of hauling a state court judge into federal court under these circumstances is outrageous,” Gertner said. “It has implications beyond Judge Joseph. Are they going to go into a church and arrest the reverend for permitting sanctuary to immigrants? There are so many levels to this incredibly excessive, overreaching, grandstanding prosecution.”

U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling is charging a trial court judge and a former court officer with obstruction of justice. The charges stem from an incident that occurred last April, when the pair allegedly helped a man slip out the back door of a Newton courthouse to avoid detention by federal immigration authorities. Middlesex County Judge Shelley M. Richmond and now-retired court officer Wesley MacGregor are facing three obstruction charges, including conspiracy, aiding and abetting and obstruction of a federal proceeding. ... Guests: Nancy Gertner, retired federal judge, senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, WBUR legal analyst.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Some of President Donald Trump’s critics are saying that, despite special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, Trump could still be prosecuted for obstruction of justice after he leaves office. Don’t believe it. It’s conceivable that Trump could face charges post-presidency by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for campaign-finance felonies he may have committed while paying off Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen. And who knows what financial shenanigans from before his presidency might be investigated and prosecuted by New York prosecutors.

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe calls Trump's contempt of Congress an "astonishing exercise in arrogant obstruction of justice" and an impeachable offense. Tribe explains to Lawrence why Trump cannot fight impeachment in the Supreme Court as he claimed.

Constitutional experts say that President Donald Trump got a fundamental fact about impeachment wrong in his latest complaint about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. ... Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard who has co-authored a book on impeachment, called Trump’s argument “idiocy,” saying the Supreme Court would want nothing to do with a legal challenge like that. “The court is very good at slapping down attempts to drag things out by bringing it into a dispute where it has no jurisdiction,” he told TIME.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: After oral argument Tuesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems modestly likely that a majority of the justices is poised to allow the Trump administration to ask a citizenship question on the 2020 census. That would overturn a lower court decision holding, essentially, that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross didn’t state his true reasons for wanting to add the question in the first place.

President Trump has embarked on a strategy of stonewalling, defiance and constitutional nihilism. With stunts such as blocking former White House counsel Donald McGahn’s testimony, he has announced that Congress is not entitled to hear from witnesses relevant to the already substantial mound of evidence of obstruction of justice nor get tax returns that the law says “shall” be turned over to Congress. “Defying congressional subpoenas as a strategy — especially without even a colorable legal argument, and Trump has none that I can see — is surely yet another act of obstruction,” says constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team found no evidence of a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign to rig the 2016 presidential election. But legal experts said Thursday that the highly anticipated Mueller report doesn’t shut the door on the question of whether President Trump obstructed the special counsel’s investigation into Russian meddling. ... Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who teaches at Harvard Law School, noted in an e-mail that the federal obstruction law covers a wide array of actions. “The statute talks not only about actual obstruction but also endeavor to obstruct,” Gertner wrote in an e-mail. “The report suggests that Trump ‘endeavored’ to obstruct but those around him would not comply. And ‘endeavor’ has to come with a corrupt intent. The AG seems to think that if Trump was not conspiring with the Russians, there was no corrupt intent. But the purpose of his attempted obstruction didn’t have to be to stop a Russian conspiracy investigation.”

The Mueller report included substantial evidence that Trump committed the crime of obstruction. Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who warned earlier in 2019 that impeachment proceedings ahead of the 2020 election would be “pointless” tells MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber that the conduct evidenced in Mueller’s report, is “impeachable if anything is”.

An article by Jeannie Suk Gersen: In September, 2017, a month after the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, student protesters at the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, shut down a speaker—Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Virginia. A student group had invited Gastañaga to campus to give a talk on the importance of free speech, but, because of the students’ persistent disruptions, she could not proceed. “Blood on your hands,” the protesters shouted, and “Shame! Shame! Shame!” and “You protect Hitler.” ... The more that free speech is denounced by the left, the more it is embraced by the right. Two years ago, the University of California, Berkeley, cancelled a lecture by the far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, after protests of the event turned violent; President Trump then threatened, in a tweet, to withdraw federal funds from the school. At the time, the President’s suggestion appeared to lack a legal basis. Now he has created one, in the form of an executive order issued last month, in defense of free speech.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein: One of the great unresolved questions in American law is whether the president can control the decisions of the “independent” agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Trade Commission. The Donald Trump administration has just moved in the direction of saying that the answer is yes.

Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic and the Natural Resources Defense Council estimate that up to 40% of all food produced in the United States (approximately 1.3 billion tons) is lost or wasted every year. Meanwhile, Feeding America estimates that one out of every eight Americans, or more than 40 million people, is food-insecure (almost 13 million of whom are children). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, each year consumers in wealthy countries allow almost as much food to go to waste (222 million tons) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tons).

Harvard Law School professor and former prosecutor Alex Whiting joins the show to break down the Mueller Report from a legal perspective.

A bill before the Texas Senate seeks to prevent social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter from censoring users based on their viewpoints. Supporters say it would protect the free exchange of ideas but critics say the bill contradicts a federal law that allows social media platforms to regulate their own content. ... Kendra Albert, a lecturer at Harvard Law School, said the federal law would likely preempt SB 2373 because the bill is more restrictive. “The federal law contains what we would call a ‘subjective standard,’” said Albert, who specializes in technology law. “It's based on whether the provider thinks that this causes problems, whereas the Texas bill attempts to move it to an objective standard.”

Global M&A deal volume reached nearly $4 trillion in 2018—a hot year for the most lucrative practice at elite law firms. For two of those firms, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Cravath, Swaine & Moore, the boom pushed profits per equity partner to new heights—$6.53 million at Wachtell and $4.62 million at Cravath. ... Wachtell has previously considered other locations, including London. It had a small office in Chicago, but closed it about two decades ago, according to John Coates, a former Wachtell partner who teaches corporate law and M&A at Harvard Law School. ... Coates, at Harvard, says he sometimes poses a question to law firm partners who attend his seminars: If their own firm had a conflict on a client matter and had to refer it to a global firm or Wachtell, which would they choose? “They always pick Wachtell,” he says, because they believe the firm won’t try to take the whole client relationship.