UnCommon Law

How does the Justice Department decide who gets charged with a crime and who doesn't? In the post-Watergate era, the Justice Department developed policies and institutional safeguards intended to separate political considerations from prosecutorial decisions: typically career attorneys delve into the law and investigate the facts, evaluate the evidence needed to secure a conviction, and recommend whether a case should move forward. However, Trump administration critics say that process is under pressure, pointing to a series of high-profile cases involving political figures and former government officials. On this episode of UnCommon Law, we explore the doctrine of selective prosecution — the claim that someone was targeted for prosecution because of who they are, what they said, or the political positions they hold. Through the cases involving James Comey, Letitia James, and Eric Adams, legal scholars, journalists, and former Justice Department officials examine how the DOJ decides whether to pursue or abandon a case, and what that process reveals about prosecutorial discretion, independence, and accountability. We'll also examine the changing role of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, the office created after Watergate to help oversee politically sensitive prosecutions. Guests: Bennett Gershman, professor of law at Pace University and a former prosecutor in the New York State Anti-Corruption Office; author of the treatise Prosecutorial Misconduct Stanley Brand, former general counsel to the US House of Representatives and a veteran white-collar defense attorney; now Distinguished Fellow in Law and Government at Penn State Dickinson Law John Keller, former chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section; now a partner at Walden Macht Haran & Williams Chris Strohm, senior reporter at Bloomberg News covering the Justice Department

The US copyright system encourages human creativity. So does it make sense to grant a copyright to work created by AI with the click of a button? And, if AI generated artwork is given copyright protection, how would that impact the livelihoods of creative professionals? In our last episode, we looked at Jason Allen’s AI-generated artwork, "Théatre D’opéra Spatial," and the arguments why it should have some copyright protection. This time, we examine the other side – the most powerful arguments for why AI-generated work should never be eligible for copyright. Guests: Jason M. Allen, founder of Art Incarnate Sy Damle, partner in the copyright litigation group at Latham & Watkins Karla Ortiz, artist Kelly McKernan, artist Delanie West, advocacy liaison for the Graphic Artists Guild Genel Jumalon, artist *** Host/Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Additional Editing: Andrew Satter Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

Generative AI tools are already promising to change the world. Systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT can answer complex questions, write poems and code, and even mimic famous authors with uncanny accuracy. But in using copyrighted materials to train these powerful AI products, are AI companies infringing the rights of untold creators? This season on UnCommon Law, we'll explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and the law. On episode one, we learned about the lawsuits filed against AI companies that trained their large language models on copyrighted work without permission. Now we'll learn about the legal defense that could give the AI companies a pass to continue scraping up whatever content they want, copyright-protected or not. Guests: Matthew Butterick, founder at Butterick Law, and co-counsel with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm on class-action lawsuits against OpenAI and others Isaiah Poritz, technology reporter for Bloomberg Law Matthew Sag, professor of law and artificial intelligence, machine learning and data science at Emory University School of Law Mark Lemley, professor of law at Stanford Law School and the director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, who is also representing Meta and Stability AI in the copyright cases against them James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and information law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School *** Host/Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Additional Editing: Andrew Satter Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

When Scott Griffin visited the Haunted Trail, he expected to be scared. But he did not expect what happened after he thought the scare was over. This special Halloween episode of UnCommon Law tells the true story of a man terrorized by a haunted house attraction. Griffin bought a ticket to a haunted house — but ended up getting more than he bargained for: two broken wrists. He sued for negligence and assault. Can someone who paid to be frightened sue when things go too far? Guests: P. Christopher Ardalan, attorney at Ardalan & Associates, PLC Larry Levine, law professor at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law *** Host/Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

The Supreme Court has effectively ended the use of race as a factor in college admissions. In a 6-3 ruling, along ideological lines, the divided Supreme Court struck down the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which both used race as a factor in their admissions process. Today, on this special edition of UnCommon Law, we’ll learn how the court came to its decision. And: Did the majority leave the door open for colleges to still consider race in some circumstances? We’ll learn why some supporters of affirmative action still have a glimmer of hope. Featuring: Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and past president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School Lee Bollinger — Outgoing president of Columbia University, and former president of the University of Michigan Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions

California is one of just three states where noncompete agreements are almost completely banned. California is also the home of Silicon Valley, the global hub of technological innovation. Is that just a coincidence? Or would Silicon Valley be as successful even if noncompete agreements were allowed? This week on UnCommon Law, part three of our ongoing series on the Federal Trade Commission's proposal to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. Is California’s ban on noncompete agreements really a key component to Silicon Valley’s success? Guests: Evan Starr, professor at University of Maryland Margaret O'Mara, professor at the University of Washington Ronald Gilson, professor emeritus at Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School David Schultz, host of Bloomberg Law's On the Merits *** Host/Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring one of the most expansive Federal Trade Commission proposals of the last half century: a near-total nationwide ban on noncompete clauses. We’ll examine arguments for the ban, and talk to workers who’ve had their livelihoods crushed by oppressive covenants not to compete. We’ll look at arguments in favor of keeping noncompetes, and talk with business owners who say they’re crucial for keeping trade secrets confidential and protecting business relationships. Finally, we’ll explore a more fundamental question: Does the FTC even have the legal authority to do this? Our first episode explores how this unprecedented proposal came to be. To understand just how out-of-the-ordinary this proposal is, we'll journey into the history of the agency, whose past rulemakings got them labeled the "national nanny" by the Washington Post, and led to threats of defunding. Guests: Emily Olson, hair stylist Leah Nylen, Bloomberg News reporter Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director of the Open Markets Institute Evan Starr, professor at the University of Maryland *** Host/Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

It’s been almost 20 years since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, intentionally or not, set an affirmative action countdown in motion. On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court heard arguments that Harvard and the University of North Carolina go too far in their use of race in admissions. Will the diversity rationale — the heart of affirmative action defenses since 1978 — convince this staunchly conservative court? Also, while diversity has been the reason affirmative action has survived legal tests — was it ever the best reason, under the Constitution, for affirmative action? Or have advocates been hamstrung by an argument that doesn't go far enough? Are race-conscious admissions policies about to fall? The conclusion to our four-part series on affirmative action at the Supreme Court. Guests: Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions William Lee, partner at WilmerHale Kimberly Robinson, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law Michelle Adams, professor at the University of Michigan Law School *** Host/Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte