Some scholars call our politically fraught and hyper-partisan times “the age of impeachment.” They claim the increased use of impeachment and removal proceedings signals an erosion in institutional norms, perhaps that we’ve even “overwhelmed” the use of impeachment and diluted impeachment of any significance.

What does U.S. impeachment history tell us? The Constitution provides that treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors are impeachable offenses. A common thread that runs throughout presidential impeachment proceedings is an effort by legal counsel to try and define the scope of impeachable misconduct.

On this episode of Discovery, we discuss the history of impeachment with Professor Michael Gerhardt from the Carolina Law faculty, whose teaching and research focuses on constitutional conflicts between presidents and Congress. He has authored nine books, testified more than 20 times before Congress, and has served as an expert commentator for CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Gerhardt joined the Carolina Law faculty in 2005 and serves as the Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence.

Gerhardt's new book, The Law of Presidential Impeachment, provides a comprehensive and nonpartisan explanation of impeachment's role in presidential accountability.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee to personal liberty does not include the right to abortion and returned the power to regulate abortion to individual states. Justice Samuel Alito said in the Court’s majority opinion that the decision in Dobbs v. The Jackson Women's Health Organization would end the abortion controversy once and for all. However, in overruling both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, an unprecedented new landscape interfering with human rights has emerged, factors which intersect with rights related to environmental justice, contraception, marriage equality and private sexual conduct, among others.

In this episode of the Discovery podcast, we address the new “patchwork quilt” of state legislation on abortion with UW Law alumnus Elisabeth Smith, the director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights. She recently visited her alma mater to give students in the 1L Perspectives class series an overview of how the Dobbs decision affects the terrain for reproductive justice across the country.

Elisabeth Smith is director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, where she was formerly Chief Counsel starting in 2018. She moved to New York from Washington state where she was legislative director for the ACLU. She graduated from Davidson College and the University of Washington School of Law.

Beginning with the tale of an unsolved mystery, and expanding to the U.S. Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, UW Professor of Law Mary D. Fan takes us through a look at how crimes are being solved through the use of digital searches. Keyword and geofence warrants are now tools helping law enforcement identify unknown perpetrators. However, courts are split over their constitutionality. Search and arrest warrants are in the text of the Fourth Amendment, but how do we apply constitutional rights with “technological probable cause” and the deployment of big data searches?

Twice recognized as the large section Professor of the Year at UW Law, Mary D. Fan is the Jack R. MacDonald Endowed Chair and teaches criminal law. She has a J.D. from Yale, a master's from Cambridge and is a Ph.D. candidate in epidemiology at the University of Washington.

The Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the application of neuroscience research to the legal culpability of minors committing crimes, no matter how serious, must be considered in the criminal justice system. In addition to maintaining public safety, the primary goals of the juvenile justice system include rehabilitation and successfully reintegrating youth into the community after time is served. But what if just going to prison as a young person ends up working against you when you seek parole?

Parole systems, the back end of criminal justice reform, often do not receive much attention. In this episode, assistant professor of law David Garavito, who teaches Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at UW Law, explains the different kinds of parole systems with a particular lens on South Carolina’s discretionary parole system, which disproportionately applies prejudice against minors who commit crimes.

Garavito’s area of expertise is juvenile law. In addition to a J.D., Garavito holds M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Human Development, all from Cornell University, and is a New York attorney. His ability and insight to write on legal and policy matters relating to criminal law, human development, and the application of psychology and neuroscience make this a riveting conversation. Garavito’s paper with John Blume and Amelia Hritz, “Caged Birds and Those That Hear Their Songs: Effects of Race and Sex in South Carolina Parole Hearings,” will be published in the Journal of Legal & Social Change in April 2024.

In this episode of “Discovery,” we interview our first return guest, Professor Robert Tsai of the Boston University School of Law. Tsai visited the UW Law Faculty Colloquium to discuss his forthcoming (and fourth) book, Demand the Impossible: One Lawyer’s Pursuit of Equal Justice, a historical thriller about the decline of the death penalty adjacent to the career of attorney Stephen Bright, executive director of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Bright argued four Supreme Court cases following the McCleskey v. Kemp ruling in 1987. The ruling declared that, even if the death penalty has a racially disproportionate impact in a state, it does not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution unless a racially discriminatory purpose can be proved.

The disappointing ruling mobilized a group of civil rights advocates, led by Bright, to actually double down on their efforts to fight the death penalty and tough-on-crime policies through the courts. Tsai, who attended Yale Law School, grew up in Port Townsend, Washington, and is now a Law Alumni Scholar at Boston University. Join us as he takes us through the journey of Stephen Bright’s fight for justice.

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-based admissions at college campuses nationwide after hearing companion cases by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) that challenged admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). SFFA overturned the 2003 ruling by a more liberal Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed that a student’s race could be used as one of multiple factors in admissions decisions at the University of Michigan. 

Affirmative action was rejected by the conservative majority on the bench, which agreed that UNC’s policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that Harvard’s affirmative action plan discriminates against Asian American students, a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But did it really change the way campus admissions will operate? 

In their forthcoming paper in the Texas Law Review, “The Goose and the Gander: How Conservative Precedents Will Save Campus Affirmative Action,” Professor Guha Krishnamurthi of the University of Maryland Carey Law School contends (along with his co-author Peter Salib) that though affirmative action is legally dead, race will still figure into holistic admissions procedures-- just not as a check-box item.

In this episode of Discovery, we speak with Prof. Krishnamurthi about the previous state of play in race-based admissions and his opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against campus affirmative action has no practical effect on the way schools operate. He argues that due to the Supreme Court’s decades-old rulings that statistical proof cannot carry a constitutional discrimination claim, universities will only be liable in litigation if they admit that they practice affirmative action, so most schools will pursue diversity by other means, simply by operating in the shadows.

Over the last half century, Congress has passed strong laws relating to environmental protection, covering a range of resources and industries. Despite these bold and comprehensive laws, implementation can be challenging, especially when it comes to the court system’s interpretation of them.

Sanne Knudsen, the Stimson Bullitt Endowed Professor of Environmental Law at UW Law, calls out the United States Supreme Court as being hostile or apathetic towards environmental laws, despite their often-strong language. She believes environmental law is a rational response to the fact that earth has finite resources and they need to be protected.

In this episode, Professor Knudsen calls on Congress to enact the Environmental Judicial Review Act — as she calls it — to remind the courts that Congress passes environmental legislation to ensure environmental protection. By passing a comprehensive act, Congress could reaffirm the values and strength of existing environmental laws, while also addressing pressing issues such as climate change.