Stanford Legal

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 page
David 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 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

(00:00:00) Introduction
(00:02:08) What does it mean to seal a document?
(00:04:06) What should be sealed, and sealing vs. redaction
(00:05:55) Catch-22 and Judge Breyer’s redacted opinion
(00:06:54) How the study was done: Two million dockets and a machine learning pipeline
(00:08:20) The wrong standard (or no standard at all)
(00:10:43) Real-world consequences: Sealing and hidden public health hazards
(00:12:26) “Shadow consent”: Why sealing motions go unopposed
(00:14:49) No constituency for transparency
(00:16:06) Can the press be the fail-safe? (It’s a myth)
(00:19:35) Proposed fixes: Intervention tools and a Rhode Center staff attorney
(00:20:34) Law on the books vs. law in action: A rule of law problem
(00:22:53) Why litigation transparency matters: Regulatory, procedural, and democratic work
(00:25:55) The vanishing trial and why the papers matter
(00:27:47) Cause for optimism? Prospects for rulemaking
(00:29:12) Where to draw the line: Protective orders vs. sealing standards
(00:30:26) Rules vs. standards: What should always be sealed?
(00:32:05) 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.

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 page
Endangered Species Act’s “harm” rule, explained >>> Stanford Law School 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
(00:00:00) Introduction and welcoming Debbie Sivas
(00:02:16) What is "climate abundance"?
(00:04:22) Deregulation for fossil fuels, not clean energy
(00:06:26) Why the grid really isn't being built
(00:08:32) Killing wind projects
(00:10:31) NEPA, the Supreme Court, and citizen suits
(00:13:03) Courts vs. agencies: a legal whiplash
(00:14:40) Opening Alaska's roadless forests to logging
(00:18:57) A "concrete proposal" for environmental democracy
(00:22:08) The national and global collective action problem
(00:24:02) Novel legal tools: IEEPA, the Alien Enemies Act, and the Defense Production Act
(00:25:42) Citizen suits' achilles' heel
(00:27:24) Training the next generation of environmental lawyers
(00:29:40) Clinic spotlight: Northern Chumash Tribal Council
(00:31:13) Closing thoughts

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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 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

(00:00) Introduction
(00:01:53) Setting up today's two topics
(00:02:21) Missouri's redistricting battle explained
(00:03:49) The Supreme Court sides with the Missouri Supreme Court
(00:04:42) Two separate Supreme Court interventions
(00:06:37) Why this moment is unprecedented
(00:08:54) The rise of one-party congressional delegations
(00:11:54) Is there a way out?
(00:12:47) A preview: the 2030 census fight
(00:16:25) Shifting to how Americans actually vote
(00:18:00) Trump's executive order on mail voting
(00:19:51) The Postal Service's ballot-matching portal
(00:21:37) Envelope errors and a scramble before Election Day
(00:22:34) Round one at the Supreme Court: too soon to sue
(00:24:57) Round two: now it's "too late"
(00:26:21) The Postal Service's outsized role in elections
(00:27:17) The Purcell principle and last-minute chaos
(00:28:01) A fracturing Supreme Court on election law
(00:28:54) "Suppression through chaos"
(00:30:10) Closing



Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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



(00:00:00) Welcome to Anne Joseph O'Connell

(00:01:32) What "Actings" are, and why they matter

(00:02:53) The U.S. Attorney job, explained

(00:07:09) Three ways to fill a vacant U.S. Attorney seat

(00:11:01) The courts say no to post-vacancy "first assistants"

(00:12:37) Ripple effects across the federal government

(00:14:07) Does this undercut the Unitary Executive?

(00:15:24) A legislative fix, and the delegation workaround

(00:16:31) Circuit courts shut down delegation

(00:18:22) Trump v. Slaughter and the power to fire

(00:19:12) The Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights

(00:22:26) Where's the line on presidential removal power?

(00:27:02) Closing thoughts


Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The ACLU’s Anthony Romero unpacks a sweeping docket—from a Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship to voting rights and free speech—as the rule of law is tested.

---

In a timely conversation about the ACLU’s massive docket of cases, Pam Karlan speaks with Anthony Romero, JD ’90, executive director of the ACLU, about the surge of civil rights and civil liberties battles facing the country right now.

Romero discusses major pieces of litigation spanning immigration, free speech, voting rights, and government accountability. A key focus is the Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship, where the Trump administration is attempting to deny citizenship to certain children born in the U.S., a move Romero calls an attack on one of the core promises of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also explore what happens when the government pushes the boundaries of compliance with court rulings and what that means for the rule of law.

Tune in for a compelling conversation about the cases that could help define the next chapter of civil liberties law in the United States.

Links:

Anthony Romero >>> ACLU page

Connect:

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page

Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X

Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page

Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X

Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X

(00:00) Introduction and ACLU’s Rapidly Expanding Docket

(02:30) Small but Mighty—ACLU vs. Federal Power

(07:00) Inside a Burgeoning Docket

(11:30) Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court

(16:00) Enforcement at Scale and the Rule of Law

(21:00): An Inflection Point in Public Sentiment

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.